if 
"BUY  THE   TRUTH,    AND   SELL  IT  NOT." 


—  FROM     THE 


International  ^ract  t  J 


JSSIONARY  ^OCIETY 

Of  Se-vexi.tla.-^a,3r  -A.d.-^e3a.tists. 


ORGANIZED  AUGUST  13,  1874. 


Eld    S.  N.  HASKELL,  President,  South  Lancaster,  Mass. 
W.  C.  WHITE,  Vice-President,  Oakland,  California. 

Miss  M.^L.  HUNTLEY,  Secretary,  South  Lancaster,  Mass. 


'  -PT^T-Nrmr.Tn-Nr     "N".    .T.  <vf> 


PKINCETON,    N.    J. 


BV    113 

.L779    1873a 

^] 

Littlej 

ohn,   Wolcott 

H., 

183j 

-1916. 

The   constitutional 

amendmen: 

S/ielf. Ntimber. 


in  the  organization  of  the  International  Tract  and  Missionary  Societv  was  to  s(^- 
cuve  an  extensive  and  systematic  distribution  of  m:)ral  and  relig'ious  literatue 
throughout  all  civilized  coantries.  Large  donations  of  the  same  have  been  made 
to  public  libraries,  readhig  rooms,  first-class  steamers,  etc.,  besides  a  general  distri- 
bution of  from  fifteen  t  >  twenty  millions  pages  annually.  It  also  embraces  in  its  ob- 
ject all  banevolent  and  missionarj-  efforts.  Large  deposits  of  publications  are  kept 
constantly  under  the  direction  of  agents  (see  above),  of  whom  they  can  be  obtained  in 
the  English,  German,  Italian,  Danish,  and  Swedish  languages.  Correspondence  is 
solicited  with  those  wishing  further  information. 

lIEBEBCEEHEEEBEBBEEBEECBEEElEBEBBEEEIBiilECEEEIEEEir 


THE 


CONSTITUTIONAL  AMENDMENT 


THE  SUNDAY,  THE  SABBATH, 


TUli 


Change,  and    Restitution. 


A   DISCUSSION   BETWEEN 

W.    H  VlITTLEJOHK,    seventh-day   ADVENTIST, 

AKD   THE 

EDITOK  OV  THE  CHRISTIAN  STATESMAN. 


STEAM    PRESS 

Of    THE    SEVENTH   bAY  ADVENTIST    PUBLISHINQ   ASSOCIATION. 

BATTLE  CREEK,  MICH.: 
1873. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  3'ear  1673,  by  the 

S.  D.  A.  P.  ASSOCIATION, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


PEE 


As  IT  has  been  tliouglit  best  that  the  follow ffl^'^ticlep, 
which,  with  the  exception  of  the  Replies  and  Rejoinders, 
have  already  been  published  in  the  Christian  Statesman,  the 
Sabbath  Recorder,  and  the  Advent  Review,  should  have  a  still 
wider  circulation,  it  has  been  at  last  decided  to  present  them 
to  the  public  in  the  form  of  the  present  volume. 

The  occasion  of  their  first  appearance  was  as  follows : 
Within  the  last  few  years,  a  party  has  been  organized  in 
this  country,  whose  especial  aims  are  the  amendment  of  the 
Constitution,  so  that  the  names  of  God  and  Christ  may  ap- 
pear in  it;  the  recognition  in  the  same  instrument  of  the 
Bible  as  the  fountain  of  national  law;  the  securing  of  the 
reading  of  the  Bible  in  the  common  schools ;  and  the  en- 
forcement by  law  of  the  observance  of  Sunday,  as  the  Chris- 
tian Sabbath.  Slowly,  but  steadily,  the  friends  of  this  move- 
ment are  bringing  it  to  the  public  notice  and  enlarging  the 
circle  of  its  active  supporters.  A  single  glance  at  the  exist- 
ing state  of  affairs  reveals  the  fact  that,  at  no  distant  date, 
the  issues  which  these  men  are  making  up  will  be  the  ones 
over  which  contending  parties  will  wage  fierce  contest.  Al- 
ready the  press  of  the  country,  by  the  drift  of  events  which 
they  find  themselves  incapable  of  controlling,  are  compelled, 
almost  dailj^  to  record  transactions  svhich  are  not  only  call- 
ing the  attention  of  the  people  to  a  conflict  which  is  both 
imminent  and  irrepressible,  but  which  are  also  continually 
adding  fuel  to  a  flame  which  even  now  burns  with  a  fierce- 
ness and  volume  indicative  of  its  future  scope  and  power. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  the  writer  of  the  subjoined  articles, 
while  taking  no  particular  interest  in  party  politics,  merely 
as  such,  nevertheless  felt  a  profound  conviction  that  the 
time  had  come,  in  the  providence  of  God,  when  Christian 

(iii) 


\ 


4  r RE FACE. 

men  should  otter  a  solemn  protest  against  a  state  of  aflairs 
which,  while  ostensibly  inaugurated  in  the  interest  of  the 
kingdom  of  Christ,  will  ultimately  prove  most  destructive  of 
religious  liberty.  This,  he  therefore  attempted  to  do, 
purely  from  the  stand-point  of  the  Bible.  Through  the 
courtesy  of  the  editor  of  the  Christian  Statesman,  which  pa- 
per is  the  organ  of  the  amendment  party,  the  first  seven  of 
the  following  communications  were  permitted  to  appear  in 
the  columns  of  that  periodical.  Subsequently,  the  editor  of 
that  paper  felt  it  incumbent  upon  him  to  take  issue  with 
what  was  thus  published,  and  to  answer  the  same  in  a  series 
of  editorial  articles.  To  these  again,  the  author  of  the  orig- 
inal communications  published  a  series  of  rejoinders,  in  de- 
fense of  the  positions  assumed  by  him  in  the  outset,  and  in 
controversion  of  those  of  the  reviewer.  These  articles,  the 
replies  of  the  editor,  and  the  rejoinders  thereto,  having 
been  grouped  together  in  the  present  volume,  are  oifered 
to  a  candid  public  for  serious  consideration. 

The  reader  will  readily  perceive  that  the  whole  discussion 
turns  upon  the  Sabbath  question.  Fortunately,  also,  he  will 
discover  that  the  ground  covered  in  the  debate  by  the  re- 
spective disputants  is  that  generally  occupied  by  the  classes 
of  believers  whom  they  represent.  Leaving  him,  therefore, 
to  decide  for  himself  as  to  which  of  the  views  presented  has 
the  sanction  of  the  divine  mind,  the  writer  of  the  present 
preface  can  do  no  more  than  to  give  expression  to  his 
earnest  desire  that  the  God  of  all  truth  will  vouchsafe  his 
Spirit  for  the  illumination  of  every  mind  which  comes  to  the 
consideration  of  this  subject  with  an  honest  purpose  to  as- 
certain his  will  in  the  matter  under. consideration. 

W.    H.    L. 

Allegan,  Mich. 


CONSTITUTIONAL 


ARTICLE     I. 

One  of  the  marked  features  of  our  time  is  the 
tendency  toward  the  discussion  of  the  Sabbath 
question.  Nor  can  this  subject  be  treated  witli 
more  indifference  in  the  future  than  it  is  at  the 
present.  Agitation,  ceaseless,  unrelenting,  excit- 
ed, and  finally  severe,  is  rendered  certain  by  the 
temper  of  all  the  parties  to  the  controversy.  On 
the  one  hand,  the  friends  of  Sunday  observance 
are  dissatisfied  with  the  laxity  of  the  regard 
which  is  paid  it,  and  are  loud  in  their  demands 
for  statutory  relief;  denouncing  upon  the  nation 
the  wrath  of  God,  in  unstinted  measure,  should 
their  petition  be  set  at  naught.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  enemies  of  the  Sabbath  institution,  in 
all  of  its  phases,  are  becoming  bold  in  their  pro- 
testations against  a  legalized  Sabbath,  as  some- 
thing extremely  oppressive  and  inexpressibly  in- 
tolerable in  its  very  nature. 

In  all  parts  of  the  country,  activity  character- 
izes the  camps  of  both  these  contending  hosts. 
Everywhere  the  elements  of  strength — hitherto 
unorganized,  and    inefficient  to  the  accomplisli- 


b  CONSriTUTlONAL    AMENDMENT. 

merit  *.)f  great  results  because  of  that  fact — are  be- 
ing brought  out  and  employed  in  effective  service. 
Cincinnati,  Chicago,  New  York,  Boston,  San 
Francisco,  in  their  turn,  become  the  theaters 
where  the  skirmisli  lines  of  future  combatants, 
on  a  larojer  scale,  are  brouorht  into  occasional  col- 
lision.  The  ordinary  appliances  of  dinners,  pro- 
cessions, national  and  State  conventions,  city, 
town,  and  district  societies,  are  rapidly  becoming 
the  order  of  the  day,  while  those  who  are  brought 
within  the  range  of  their  influence  are  stimulated 
and  aroused,  on  the  one  hand,  by  earnest  appeals 
to  the  Bible  and  religion,  and  on  the  other,  to 
natural  rights  and  individual  conscience.  So  far 
has  the  matter  now  proceeded,  so  much  has  al- 
ready been  said,  so  fully  has  the  contest  been 
opened,  that  retrogression  means  defeat  to  either 
the  one  or  the  other  party.  And  as  to  compro- 
mise, this  can  never  be  attained,  from  the  fact 
that  the  position  from  which  both  parties  are 
now  seeking  to  emerge  i^  that  of  toleration. 
Why,  says  the  ardent  advocate  of  the  Sunday 
law,  it  is  not  sufficient  that  I  observe  the  day  of: 
rest  with  strictness  and  fidelity  in  my  own  fam- 
ily. I  owe  a  duty  to  the  public  ;  I  am  a  member 
of  a  great  Commonwealth,  which  God  treats  as  a 
personality,  and  if  I  do  not  see  to  it  that  the 
statute  laws  of  the  land  are  in  harmony  with, 
and  enforce  the  requirements  of,  the  law  of  God, 
this  nation,  like  all  others  which  have  ignored 
their  obligation  to  leu'alizc  and  enforce  his  will  in 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  7 

matters  of  this  nature,  will  be  devoted  to  a  ruin 
for  which  I  shall  be  accountable,  and  in  which  I 
shall  be  a  sharer.  Moved  by  such  considerations 
as  these,  his  purse  is  open  and  his  labors  untir- 
ing for  the  accomplishment  of  that  which  now 
appears  to  him  to  be  in  the  line  of  both  individ- 
ual interest  and  religious  duty. 

Again,  his  neighbor  across  the  way  being,  per- 
haps, of  the  free-thinking  order,  and  an  ardent 
admirer  of  the  complete  separation  of  Church  and 
State,  wonders  that  he  has  so  long  consented  to 
that  abridgment  of  his  personal  liberty  which 
has  been  made  by  statutory  provision,  and  which 
has  hitherto  compelled  him  to  surrender  much  of 
what  he  calls  natural  right  to  the  whims  and  ca- 
prices of  those  with  whom  he  differs  so  widely 
on  all  questions  bearing  upon  the  relation  of  man 
to  his  God.  Henceforth,  says  he,  I  pledge  my 
means,  my  influence,  and  my  untiring  effort,  to  a 
revolution  which,  if  need  be,  shall  shake  society  to 
its  very  center,  rather  than  to  consent  to  the  legal- 
ized perpetuation  of  an  institution  which  requires 
on  my  part  an  acknowledgment  of  a  faith  which  I 
have  never  held,  and  of  doctrines  which  I  detest. 

Of  course,  all  do  not  share  alike,  either  in  the 
enthusiasm  or  the  animosity  which  characterizes 
certain  individuals  when  entering  upon  a  conflict 
like  the  one  in  question.  In  every  party  is  found 
more  or  less  of  the  aofo-ressive  and  the  conserva- 
tive  elements.  Especially  is  this  true  in  the  in- 
cipient stages  of  its  history.     Some  men  are  nee- 


8  COXSTITLTriONAL    AMEND:\rENT. 

essarily  more  earnest  than  are  others  in  every- 
thing whicli  they  undertake.  Some  are  bold, 
headlong,  defiant;  others, cautious, slow,  and  timid. 
One  class  leaps  to  its  conclusions  first,  and  looks 
for  its  arguments  afterward;  the  other  moves 
circumspectly,  and,  while  it  gives  a  general  as- 
sent to  the  desirability  of  results,  finds  a  world 
of  trouble  in  deciding  upon  what  means  ought  to 
be  employed  in  securing  them.  One  is  forever 
foaming  because  of  delay,  and  fears  defeat  as  the 
result  of  hesitation;  while  the  other  protests 
against  too  rapid  and  ill-considered  action. 

Such  is,  at  present,  the  condition  more  espe- 
cially of  the  positive  side  of  the  Sunday  move- 
ment in  this  country.  The  strong  men  and  the 
weak  men,  the  resolute  men  and  the  undecided 
men,  are  struggling  for  the  mastery  of  the  policy 
in  the  camp.  One  sort  discovers  no  difhculties 
in  the  way  of  immediate  and  complete  success. 
Lead  us  to  the  front,  say  they,  our  cause  is  just, 
and  all  that  is  necessary  to  success  is  the  courage 
and  inspiration  of  battle.  But  hold,  say  the  oth- 
ers, not  too  fast ;  public  sentiment  is  not  pre- 
pared for  the  issue.  And  besides,  we  are  not  so 
clear  in  our  minds  as  are  you  respecting  the 
lengths  to  which  this  controversy  should  be  car- 
ried, and  the  line  of  arcrument  which  oucrht  to  be 
pursued.  Why,  say  the  first,  what  need  can 
there  be  of  more  delay  ?  Nothing  is  more  man- 
ifest than  the  means  which  we  ought  to  employ 
for   the   accomplishment  of  our   purpose.     Our 


SUNDAY    AXD    TITK    SABBATH.  !) 

work  is  simply  tliat  of"  enforcement.  Has  not 
God  said  in  so  many  words,  in  the  decalogue, 
"  Six  days  sbalt  thou  labor,  and  do  all  thy  work  : 
but  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord 
thy  God:  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work"?  Is 
not  this  language  explicit  ?  Is  it  not  a  part  of 
that  law  which  nearly  all  Christians  acknowledge 
to  be  binding  ?  Do  we  not  enforce  the  observ- 
ance of  the  remaining  commandments  by  statu- 
tory provision  ?  And  is  it  not  equally  clear  that 
this  should  be  treated  in  like  manner  ?  Why 
delay,  then  ?  Why  not  move  upon  the  enemy's 
works  with  the  inspiring  battle-cry  of  "  God  in 
the  Constitution  ? "  Why  not  at  once  clamor  for 
the  amendment  of  that  instrument,  and  for  the 
passage  of  statutes  by  which  the  better  observ- 
ance of  the  Christian  Sabbath  can  be  secured  ? 
Give  us  these,  and  our  victory  is  won.  Our 
Sunday  mails,  and  trains,  and  travel,  and  public 
amusements  of  every  name  and  nature,  can  be 
removed  at  a  single  stroke.  As  a  result,  the  na- 
tion will  stand  higher  in  the  estimation  of  God  ; 
and  the  people,  having  acknowledged  his  suprem- 
acy, will  have  taken  a  long  step  in  the  direction 
of  final  renovation  and  conversion. 

But  wait,  says  another,  not  too  fast  in  matters 
of  so  great  moment.  Please  bear  in  mind  the 
fact  that  this  contest  is  to  be  one  of  words  and 
arguments.  Your  danger  is  that  of  underrating 
the  capacity  and  intelligence  of  our  opponents. 
If  you  expect  to  meet  them  successfully,  it  must 


10  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

be  by  a  logic  which  will  bear  criticism  and  ex- 
amination. 

As  an  individual,  I  am  by  no  means  certain 
that  the  Bible  authority  for  our  movement  is  so 
clear  and  abundant  as  you  seem  to  imagine. 

The  law  which  you  quote  in  justification  of 
our  course  is  truly  a  Sabbath  law,  and  its  import 
is  unmistakable;  but,  unfortunately,  instead  of 
making  for  our  cause,  it  is  diametrically  opposed 
to  your  efforts,  and  plainly  declares  that  the  sev- 
enth day  of  the  week  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord, 
whereas  you  are  unmistakably  occupying  before 
the  world  a  position  no  less  awkward  than  tliat 
of  insisting  that  the  first,  and  not  the  seventh,  is 
the  one  which  should  be  enforced  by  legal  enact- 
ment. While,  therefore,  I  am  in  full  sympathy 
with  the  general  purposes  of  this  movement,  I  am 
convinced  that,  before  w^e  shall  succeed,  we  must 
rest  it  upon  a  different  basis  than  the  fourth  com- 
mandment. So  far  as  my  individual  preferences 
go — in  order  to  avoid  the  difficulties  which  lie 
along  the  line  of  Scripture  justification  for  our 
conduct — I  suggest  that  we  rest  it  upon  the 
broad  principle  of  social  necessity,  relying  for 
our  success  upon  the  generally  conceded  fact  that 
rest  upon  one  day  in  seven  is  indispensable  to  the 
well-beinff  of  individuals  and  communities. 

But,  says  a  third  party,  while  I  agree  with  you 
in  condemning  the  proposition  that  the  fourth 
commandment,  as  originally  given,  furnishes  us 
warrant  for  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  11 

week,  I  can  never  consent  to  the  idea  of  its  un- 
conditional repeal ;  for  without  it  in  some  form 
we  are  entirely  without  a  Sabbath  law ;  a  condi- 
tion of  things  which  would  be  deplorable  indeed. 
I  therefore  conclude  that  that  law  has  been 
brought  over  into  our  dispensation,  and  so  far 
changed  as  to  adapt  it  to  the  enforcement  of  the 
observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  agreea- 
bly to  the  example  of  Christ  and  the  apostles. 
With  this  view,  I  can  safely  predict  power  and 
triumph  for  the  grand  scheme  upon  which  we 
have  entered.  Give  us  a  Sabbath  of  divine  ap- 
pointment and  backed  by  a  sacred  precept,  and 
victory  is  certain.  But  so  sure  as  we  lower  the 
controversy  to  one  which  is  merely  corporeal  in 
its  nature  and  results,  and  pecuniary  in  its  con- 
siderations, defeat  is  written  upon  our  banners, 
since  you  have  taken  from  us  all  the  inspiration 
of  the  contest,  and  dried  up  the  very  springs  of 
our  enthusiasm  and  courage. 

What  the  final  result  of  such  discussions  will 
be,  there  is  little  room  for  doubt.  That  a  revolu- 
tion is  fairly  inaugurated  in  the  minds  of  the 
people,  it  is  noAV  too  late  to  question.  What  re- 
mains to  be  done,  therefore,  is  simply  to  execute 
the  grand  purpose  for  which  it  has  been  institu  ted. 

That  this  cannot  be  accomplished  by  a  merely 
negative  policy,  has  been  illustrated  too  many 
times  in  history  to  require  further  demonstration. 
Men,  having  once  entered  the  field  of  conflict, 
universally  become  less  and  less  scrupulous  in  re- 


12  CONSTITUTIOXAL   AMENDMENT. 

gai'd  to  the  means  employed  to  secure  the  desired 
object.  In  the  primary  meetings  of  a  great 
movement,  the  voice  of  the  conservative  may  he 
listened  to  with  attention  and  respect ;  but  should 
he  give  expression  to  the  same  prudent  counsel 
upon  the  battle  field,  when  the  sword  of  the  en- 
emy is  red  with  the  blood  of  his  compatriots,  his 
utterances  would  be  silenced  in  a  storm  of  indig- 
nation such  as  would  threaten  his  very  existence, 
and  consign  his  name  to  the  list  of  those  whose 
fidelity  was  at  least  questionable,  and  whose 
sympathy  with  the  common  foe  was  far  from  be- 
ing impossible. 

So,  likewise,  with  the  half-way  men  in  this  in- 
cipient struggle,  which  is  about  to  throw  open 
the  gates  of  controversy  upon  one  of  those  relig- 
ious questions  which,  above  all  others,  is  sure 
to  be  characterized,  first,  by  uncharitableness, 
and  finally,  by  bitter  hate  and  animosity.  With 
each  advancing  month,  their  hold  upon  the  confi- 
dence of  their  associates  will  grow  less  and  less, 
and  the  counsels  of  their  party  will  come  more 
and  more  fully  under  the  control  of  those  posi- 
tive, nervous  spirits,  who  are  swept  along  by 
convictions  so  deep  and  strong  that  they  will  bear 
down  everything  before  them. 

Nevertheless,  candid  reader,  it  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  there  may  not  be  much  of  truth  in 
the  positions  assumed  by  the  more  moderate  men 
in  the  existing  issue.  At  all  events — since  we 
have  not  as   yet  entered  into  that  impassioned 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  13 

state  of  the  public  inind  from  wliicli  calm  delib- 
eration is  banished  by  the  necessity  of  immediate 
action — let  us  pause  here  for  a  moment,  and  care- 
fully weigh  the  correctness  of  tlie  suggestions 
presented  above. 

Is  it  worth  the  while  to  enter  the  lists  in  the 
approaching  struggle,  in  order  to  secure  the  re- 
sults proposed  ? 

I  say  proposed,  because,  of  course,  the  i-esult  is 
as  yet  more  or  less  uncertain ;  nevertheless,  we 
incline  to  the  opinion  that  the  end  desired  will 
be  substantially  realized,  so  far  as  appearance  is 
concerned.  Yet  this  will  not  be  brought  about 
in  a  moment,  nor  will  it  be  accomplished  without 
a  hard  fight.  It  must,  from  the  very  necessity  of 
the  case,  be  a  contest  which  will  enter,  divide, 
and  distract  families,  and  which  will  alienate  a 
large  portion  of  the  community  from  the  other. 
But,  with  a  united  and  well- drilled  ministry,  on 
the  one  hand,  backed  by  the  compact  organiza- 
tion of  their  respective  churches,  and  opposed  by 
a  heterogeneous  mass  of  divscoi-dant  elements, 
there  can  be  little  doubt  as  to  final  success. 

First,  then,  let  us  suppose  that  the  policy  in- 
augurated shall  be  that  of  the  class  represented 
above  as  desiring  to  strip  the  subject  of  its  relig- 
ious garb,  and  to  array  it  in  the  habiliments  of 
mere  policy  and  temporal  considerations.  Are 
the  benefits  reasonably  to  be  expected  from  such 
a  course  such  as  would  warrant  the  enthusiasm 
now  manifested  by  the  advocates  of  the  proposed 


14  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

reformation  ?  We  believe  not.  In  tine,  so  cer- 
tain are  we  of  it,  that  we  should  not  hesitate  to 
predict  immediate  and  perfect  paralysis  to  their 
eiforts,  so  soon  as  they  should  inscribe  this  doc- 
trine upon  their  banners.  How  many  of  the 
gentlemen  in  question  are  really  so  profoundly 
interested  in  the  social  status  of  the  working-man 
that  their  zeal  in  his  behalf  could  be  wrought  up 
to  the  point  of  sacrificing  time  and  money,  and 
of  devoting  voice  and  pen  to  the  mere  work  of 
giving  him  a  septenary  day  of  physical  rest  ? 
What  satisfaction  wo  jld  be  afforded  them  by  the 
reflection  that,  as  the  result  of  legal  enactment, 
the  carefully  appointed  police  in  our  great  cities 
should  be  able  to  meet  each  other  on  the  boundary 
lines  of  their  respective  beats,  on  the  morning  of 
Sunday,  with  the  accustomed  salutation,  All  is 
quiet !  and  cessation  from  labor  is  complete  in  all 
parts  of  the  great  metropolis  ?  Who  would 
highly  prize  a  coerced  rest  of  this  sort  ?  What 
particular  gratification  would  be  afforded  to  the 
religious  world,  as  they  gather,  in  their  costly 
churches,  by  the  thought  that  the  great  mass  of 
the  people  were  quietly  sleeping,  or  lazily  loung- 
ing in  the  various  places  of  their  retirement  ? 
Certainly  there  is  nothing  in  such  a  state  of 
things  which  offers  results  sufficiently  desirable 
either  to  reward  them  for  the  great  sacrifices  with 
which  it  would  be  necessary  that  they  should  be 
purchased,  in  the  first  instance,  or  to  secure  that 
])atient    continuance    in    vigilant    perseverance 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  15 

which  would  be  required  to  insure  the  perpetuity 
of  an  order  of  things  at  once  so  compulsory  and 
so  precarious.  We  say,  therefore,  that  to  rest 
the  contest  upon  this  issue  would  be  simply  to 
falsify  the  facts.  It  is  not  the  physical  consider- 
ation of  rest,  in  any  large  degree,  which  animates 
the  mind  and  strengthens  the  resolve  of  those 
engaged  in  the  newly  organized  reform.  No; 
there  is  something  behind  all  this.  The  inform- 
ing soul,  that  which  electrifies,  stimulates,  and 
nerv^es  to  action,  is  the  profound  conviction  that 
this  is  a  religious  movement;  that  which  is 
sought  is  the  honoring  of  God  by  the  observance 
of  a  Sabbath  such  as  is  found  in  his  word.  If 
this  be  not  so,  if  the  higher  idea  of  Christian 
worship  as  the  primary  one  is  not  paramount  in 
this  matter,  then  the  whole  thing  is  a  farce,  from 
beginning  to  end.  Not  only  so  ;  if  what  is  sought 
is  merely  the  improvement  of  bodily  condition, 
then  the  plan  suggested  is,  in  many  cases,  far 
from  being  the  best  which  might  be  offered. 
Take,  if  you  please,  our  over-populated  cities, 
with  the  dense  masses  of  human  beings  who  are 
there  crowded  together,  under  most  unfavorable 
circumstances,  many  of  them  perishing  for  lack 
of  pure  air,  and  others  pale  and  sickly  for  want 
of  exposure  to  the  vivifying  rays  of  the  sun, 
which  is  continually  shut  out  from  their  gaze  by 
the  massive  piles  of  masonry  by  w^hich  they  are 
inclosed ;  who  will  not  say  that,  leaving  the  spir- 
itual out  of  consideration,  and  setting  aside  the 


16  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

idea  of  the  sanctity  of  the  day,  it  would  be  a 
blessing  incalculably  greater  for  them,  should 
provision  be  made  whereby  this  should  become 
to  them  a  day  of  recreation,  while  wandering 
amid  flowers,  and  over  hills,  and  through  ejroves, 
instead  of  one  in  which,  either  from  necessity 
or  choice,  they  should  still  perpetuate  the  con- 
finement which  has  already  nearly  proved  fatal 
in  their  cases  ? 


ARTICLE    II, 


Turning  from  the  secular  phase  of  this  subject^ 
let  us  reo^ard  it  for  a  moment  from  the  reliojious 
stand-point. 

Is  there  anything  in  the  purpose  itself  Avhich 
is  worthy  of  the  cost  at  which  aJone  it  can  be 
realized  ?  In  other  words,  since  the  object  aimed 
at  is  ostensibly  that  of  bringing  the  nation  up  to 
the  point  of  a  general  regard  for  the  first  day  of 
the  week  as  a  Sabbath,  would  such  a  result  be 
one  which  should  be  profoundly  desired  ? 

We  reply  that  this  will  depend  altogether  upon 
circumstances.  In  this  case,  as  in  the  first,  mere 
cessation  from  labor  on  that  day,  which  is  not 
prompted  by  a  regard  for  the  will  and  approval 
of  Jehovah,  could  afford  no  relief  to  a  nation 
which   is   seeking   to   avert   divine  displeasure 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SAIiHATlI.  17 

since  there  is  no  element  in  the  act  itself  calcu- 
lated to  recommend  it  to  the  favor  of  Heaven. 
To  illustrate :  The  individual  sentenced  to  soli- 
tary confinement  in  the  State's  Prison  is  pre- 
cluded from  the  possibility  of  laboring  on  the 
Sunday ;  will  any  one  therefore  argue  that  there 
is  any  merit  in  his  inaction  on  that  day  I  Again: 
The  heathen  nations,  in  common  with  the  ma- 
jority of  the  Christian  world,  have  many  of  them 
regarded  the  Sunday  as  a  sacred  day ;  should  we 
presume,  therefore,  that  they  are  looked  upon  by 
the  Almighty  more  complacently  on  this  account? 
You  answer,  No ;  and  urge,  as  a  reason  for  this 
reply,  that  they  have  been  engaged  in  a  false 
worship,  and  have  not  been  actuated  by  any  re- 
gard for  the  true  God.  Where,  then,  is  the  line  ? 
Manifestly,  right  here:  The  men  Avho  honor  God 
by  the  keeping  of  any  day  must  be  prompted  by 
the  conviction  that  they  are  doing  it  in  strict  and 
cheerful  obedience  to  a  divine  command. 

Here,  then,  is  the  crucible  in  wdiich  we  will 
try  the  metal  of  this  modern  movement.  If, 
when  their  grand  design  shall  be  accomplished — 
as  the  result  of  many  labors  and  toils — and,  even 
though  before  their  purpose  is  attained,  it  sliall 
be  found  necessary  for  them  to  reach  their  object 
through  a  conflict  intensely  bitter  and  impas- 
sioned on  the  part  of  the  opposition,  we  shall 
w^itness  the  spectacle  of  a  nation  bowing  submis- 
sively to  the  lavj  and  vjill  of  God  in  the  humble 
and  fervent  observance  of  a  weekly  rest  of  divine 

Ov.i,  Am.  2  B 


18  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

appointment,  it  will  be  the  grandest  triuinpli 
whicli  history  has  recorded.  No  treasure  of  gold 
— we  were  about  to  say  no  sacrifice  of  life — 
would  be  too  great  a  price  to  pay  for  so  glorious 
a  victory.  Let  it  be  understood,  however,  that 
this  must  be  a  voluntary  and  intelligent  worship 
on  the  part,  at  least,  of  the  mass  of  the  people. 

But  will  this  be  true,  should  our  friends  com- 
pass the  great  object  of  their  ambition  ?  Let  us 
inquire  once  more  after  their  intentions.  What 
is  it  they  advocate  ?  The  answer  is,  A  universal 
regard  for  the  first  day  of  the  week,  as  the  Sab- 
bath of  the  Lord. 

But  what  is  the  authority  upon  which  the 
majority  of  them  rest  their  argument  for  the 
proposed  observance  ?  Is  it  merely  pecuniary 
advantage  ?  No,  say  they,  it  is  out  of  a  sincere 
reorard  for  the  God  of  Heaven,  and  a  conscientious 
desire  to  fulfill  his  law.  But  this  implies  religious 
duty.  So  far,  so  good.  It  also  clearly  sets  forth 
the  fact  that  God  has  a  law,  and  a  Sabbath 
which  it  enforces.  The  appeal,  therefore,  must 
inevitably  be  to  that  law,  as  the  proper  instru- 
ment from  which  to  instruct  the  people. 

To  that  they  must  be  brought,  again  and  again. 
Its  import  must  be  j^atiently  taught,  its  sacred- 
ness  must  be  thoroughly  inculcated.  Let  them 
but  be  satisfied  by  sound  logic  that  the  divine 
statute  is  explicit  in  its  demands  for  a  strict  ob- 
servance of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  let  them  be 
thoroughly  educated  into  the  idea  that  they  are 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  19 

under  its  jurisdiction,  and  let  them  be  instructed 
that  this  whole  movement  proceeds  upon  this 
religious  conviction,  and  you  have  laid  a  founda- 
tion which  will  uphold  a  structure  of  imposing 
dimensions  and  enduring  character,  the  corner- 
stone whereof  is  the  fear  of  God,  and  an  acknowl- 
edgment of  his  presence  in  the  affairs  of  men. 
But  how  is  it  in  the  case  in  question  ?  Is  the 
commandment  of  a  nature  such  as  to  support,  in 
every  particular,  the  tenets  presented  by  the 
reform  under  consideration  ?  This  is  really  the 
vital  point.  Let  it  speak  for  itself  It  is  the 
fourth  of  the  decalogue  wdiich  is  urged.  "  Re- 
member the  Sabbath  day,  to  keep  it  holy.  Six 
days  shalt  thou  labor,  and  do  all  thy  work ;  but 
the  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy 
God :  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work,  thou,  nor 
thy  son,  nor  thy  daughter,  tliy  man-servant,  nor 
thy  maid- servant,  nor  thy  cattle,  nor  thy  stran- 
ger that  is  within  thy  gates  :  for  in  six  days  the 
Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea,  and  all 
that  in  them  is,  and  rested  the  seventh  day : 
wherefore  the  Lord  blessed'  the  Sabbath  day,  and 
hallowed  it."  If  this  is  not  a  Sabbath  law,  then 
there  is  none  in  existence ;  for,  mark  if,  this  is 
the  only  instance  in  all  the  Scriptures  in  which 
it  will  be  claimed  by  any  one  that  we  have  a 
positive  command  for  the  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath. So  far,  therefore,  as  the  first  day  of  the 
week  is  concerned,  its  friends  have  this  advant- 
age, that,  if  they  but  succeed  in  resting  it  upon 


20  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

this  commandment,  their  labor  is  ended  ;  for  it — 
i.  e.,  the  commandment — has  no  rival.  All  that 
is  needed,  consequently,  is  a  clear,  pointed  exege- 
sis showing  that  the  day  in  question  is  the  one, 
the  observance  of  which  the  divine  Lawgiver  has 
required.  But,  unfortunately,  such  an  exegesis 
would  be  beset  with  difficulties.  To  begin  with. 
Who  shall  be  able  to  harmonize  the  declaration 
wdiich  the  commandment  contains  in  these  words, 
"  The  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy 
God  :  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work,"  with  the 
utterance  of  those  who,  on  the  contrary,  say  that 
the  first  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord,  and 
must  be  observed  as  such  ?  The  divine  Law- 
o^iver — as  if  determined  that  there  shall  be  no 
room  for  debate  in  regard  to  the  day  which  he 
had  in  his  mind — has  identified  it  in  a  manner 
such  as  to  leave  no  room  for  dispute.  In  the 
first  place,  he  announces  his  willingness  that  six 
days  of  the  week  should  be  devoted  to  secular 
employment,  "  Six  days  shalt  thou  labor,  and  do 
all  thy  work  :"  then  follows  the  disjunctive,  "  but 
— the  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy 
God :  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work,"  Here 
it  is  made  plain  that  it  is  the  "  Sabbath  of  the 
Lord  "  upon  which  we  are  to  rest.  Again,  pass- 
ing over  the  intermediate  space,  we  come  to  the 
close  of  the  commandment,  in  which  he  sets  forth 
three  important  transactions  by  which  that  was 
constituted  the  Sabbath,  and  by  which  it  may 
ever  be  recognized.     He  says,  "  For  in  six  days 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  21 

the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea,  and  all 
that  in  them  is,  and  rested  the  seventh  day : 
wherefore  the  Lord  blessed  the  Sabbath  day,  and 
hallowed  it."  That  is,  the  day  which  we  are 
to  keep  as  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  is  the  one 
upon  which  he  rested,  which  he  blessed,  and 
which  he  hallowed.  Therefore,  before  the  first 
day  of  the  week  can,  with  any  show  of  reason, 
be  kept  in  fulfillment  of  this  commandment,  i.  e., 
before  it  can  be  regarded  as  the  "Sabbath  of  the 
Lord,"  it  must  be  shown  that,  at  some  time,  God 
has  rested  upon  it,  blessed,  and  hallowed  it.  But 
this  would  be  a  difficult  task ;  for  not  only  are 
the  Scriptures  silent,  so  far  as  the  affirmation  of 
this  fact  is  concerned  with  reference  to  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  posi- 
tively declare  that  it  was  the  very  day  upon 
which  Jehovah  entered  npori  the  stiqoendous 
undertaking  of  making  a  ivovld.  Should  addi- 
tional evidence  be  required  on  this  point,  i.  e., 
that  the  last  day  of  the  week,  and  not  the  first,  is 
the  one  which  Jehovah  intended  to  sanctify,  wc 
have  but  to  cite  the  intelligent  reader  to  the  fact 
that  Moses,  the  prophets,  the  Lord  himself,  the 
holy  women  after  his  death,  and  the  whole  Jew- 
ish nation — in  whose  language  the  decalogue  was 
given — are,  and  have  been,  unanimous  in  placing 
this  construction  upon  the  Sabbatic  law. 

Should  any,  however,  perceiving  the  dilemma 
into  which  they  are  thrown  by  the  effort  to  en- 
force their  view  in  the  use  of  the  law,  as  it  was 


22  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

originally  given,  seek  relief  in  the  position  that 
it  was  so  far  amended  in  the  days  of  Christ  as  to 
admit  of  the  sub.'?titution  of  the  day  of  his  resur- 
rection for  that  of  God's  rest  at  the  end  of  crea- 
tion week,  we  reply,  If  such  a  fact  can  be  clearly 
made  out,  it  would  certainly  furnish  the  very 
help  which  is  needed  just  at  this  juncture,  and 
without  which  confusion  must  inevitably  char- 
acterize the  movements  of  those  who  feel  the 
necessity  of  a  Sabbatic  law  for  the  keeping  of 
Sunday. 

Let  us,  therefore,  carefully  investigate  this 
most  important  point.  Is  it  true  that  the  Son  of 
God  did  so  change  the  phraseology  of  the  com- 
mandment of  the  Father  that,  from  his  time 
forward,  its  utterances  have  not  only  justified 
the  secularizino'  of  the  last,  but  have  also  en- 
forced,  by  the  penalty  of  eternal  death,  a  strictly 
religious  regard  for  the  first  day  of  the  week,  on 
the  part  of  both  the  Jewish  and  the  Gentile 
world  ?  Now  this,  if  accomplished,  was  no  tri- 
fiinff  affair,  and  could  not  have  been  done  in  a 
corner ;  since  it  involved  the  guilt  or  innocence, 
the  life  or  death,  of  countless  millions  of  men  and 
women,  whose  condemnation  in  the  day  of  Judg- 
ment for  the  violation  of  Sunday  sanctity  would 
turn,  of  necessity,  upon  the  words  of  one  who 
both  had  the  power  to  change,  and  had  brought 
the  knowledge  of  that  change  clearly  before 
them.  Certain  it  is,  therefore — since  God  does 
not  first  judge,  and  legislate  afterward — all  the 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  23 

light  wliich  is  necessary  for  the  proper  elucida- 
tion of  this  subject  is  now  to  be  found  in  his 
written  word.  To  this,  then,  we  turn ;  and  with 
a  profound  conviction  that  the  language  of  Christ 
was  true  in  its  largest  sense,  "  If  any  man  will  do 
his  will  he  shall  know  of  the  doctrine," — we  in- 
quire, Where  is  it  stated,  hi  so  many  %vords,  that 
God  made  the  amendment  in  question  ? 

Should  the  response  be  returned,  as  it  certainly 
must  be,  that  such  a  statement  is  not  to  be  found 
within  the  lids  of  the  Bible,  we  answer  that  this 
is  a  concession  which,  most  assuredly,  will  great- 
ly embarrass  our  friends  in  the  proposed  reform. 
Sagacious  men  will  not  be  slow  in  discovering  its 
bearing  upon  the  subject,  and  it  will  be  very 
difficult  to  explain  such  an  omission  to  the  satis- 
faction of  cautious  and  reflecting  minds.  Should 
it  be  su^fcrested,  however,  that — notwithstandino^ 
the  fact  the  change  has  not  been  set  forth  in  so 
many  words — it  has  nevertheless  occurred,  and 
is  therefore  binding,  we  answer :  Although  the 
transaction  upon  the  face  of  it,  to  say  the  least, 
would  be  a  singular  one,  if  an  alteration  has  re- 
ally been  made,  the  next  thing  to  be  ascertained 
is  its  precise  nature.  We  have  already  seen  that 
the  first  law  was  very  explicit  in  its  statements  ; 
and  all  are  conversant  with  the  fact  that  to  it 
was  given  the  greatest  publicity,  and  that  it  was 
uttered  by  the  voice,  and  written  by  the  finger 
of  God,  under  the  most  imposing  circumstances. 
Now,  if  Christ — whose  power  to  do  so  we  shall 


24  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

not  question  here — has  really  undertaken  the 
task  of  adding  to,  or  takina^  from,  this  most  sacred 
precept,  will  some  one  furnish  us  with  an  au- 
thentic coj^y  of  the  statute,  as  amended  ?  Now 
this  is  a  reasonable  and  just  request.  To  declare 
simply  that  a  change  has  occurred,  without  mak- 
ing known  precisely  what  that  change  is,  is  but 
to  bewilder  and  confuse.  Conscious  of  this  fact, 
the  State  is  always  extremely  careful  to  give  to 
its  citizens — in  the  most  public  manner — every 
variation  which  is  made  in  its  enactments,  lest 
the  loyal  man  should  be  incapable  of  proving  his 
fidelity  by  obedience,  or  the  disloyal  justify  his 
violation  upon  the  plea  of  necessary  ignorance. 
Shall  man  be  more  just  than  his  Maker  ?  Shall 
Christ — who,  in  every  other  respect,  has,  in  mat- 
ters of  duty,  furnished  us  with  line  upon  line, 
and  precept  upon  precept — be  found,  at  last,  upon 
this  most  important  point,  to  have  been  unmind- 
ful of  the  highest  interests  of  liis  followers  ?  Most 
assuredly  not.  He  that  never  slumbereth  nor 
sleepeth.  He  that  knoweth  the  end  from  the  be- 
o'inninor  He  who  hath  said,  "  Where  there  is  no 
law  there  is  no  transgression,"  has  certainly  never 
required  his  people  to  occupy  a  position  in  the 
face  of  their  enemies  so  extremely  embarrassing 
as  that  in  which  they  would  be  compelled  to 
ignore  the  plainest  dictates  of  reason  and  Script- 
ure, by  seeking  to  condemn  in  the  world  a  prac- 
tice which  is  not  necessarily  immoral  in  itself, 
and  against  which  there  is  no  explicit  denuncia- 


SUNDAY    AND    TUK    ,^;Ar,RATII.  -iO 

tion  of  the  Bible.  Who,  then,  we  inquire  again, 
will  furnish  us  from  the  sacred  page  the  precept 
so  remodeled  as  to  meet  the  exigences  of  this 
case  ?  Is  it  larger  or  more  condensed  than  be- 
fore? Does  the  first  clause  read,  "Remember 
the  Sabbath  day,  to  keep  it  holy  ?"  If  so,  it  is 
well.  Is  the  second  in  order  expressed  in  these 
words,  "  Six  days  shalt  thou  labor,  and  do  all  thy 
work?"  This,  again,  is  good.  But  how  is  it 
with  the  third,  "  The  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath 
of  the  Lord  thy  God  :  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any 
work  ?"  Here,  unquestionably,  the  change  must 
begin.  Who  among  us,  therefore,  can  produce 
the  divine  warrant  for  a  reading  of  this  passage 
which  shall  make  it  harmonize  with  the  keeping 
of  Sunday  ?  Who  dare  declare,  upon  his  verac- 
ity, that  he  has  ever  discovered  in  the  sacred 
word  an  instance  in  Avhich  it  has  been  so  re- 
written as  to  read,  "  But  the  first  day  is  the  Sab- 
bath of  the  Lord  thy  God  :  in  it  thou  shalt  not 
do  any  work  ?" 

Furthermore,  passing  over  tlie  instructions  in 
regard  to  sons,  daughters,  servants,  the  stranger, 
etc.,  what  has  the  pen  of  the  divine  remodeler 
done  with  the  reason  of  the  commandment  as 
found  in  the  words,  "  For  in  six  days  the  Lord 
made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea,  and  all  that  in 
them  is,  and  rested  the  seventh  day :  wherefore 
the  Lord  blessed  the  Sabbath  day,  and  hallowed 
it  ?"  Has  that  been  stricken  out  altogether  ?  Or, 
is  there  a  glaring  inconsistency  in  the  remodeled 


26  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

statute,  by  which  it  is  made  to  state  that  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  instead  of  the  seventh,  is  now 
the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  our  God,  because  of  the 
fact  that,  in  the  creation  of  the  world,  God  rested 
upon,  blessed,  and  hallowed,  the  latter?  These 
are  weighty  C|uestions.  Upon  them,  virtually, 
turns  the  issue  of  an  amended  law.  For,  to 
amend,  is  so  to  change  or  alter  as  to  vary  the 
duty  of  a  subject;  and  if  no  one  is  capable  of 
informing  definitely  and  particularly  in  legard  to 
the  precise  variations  of  the  phraseology,  then,  of 
course,  no  one  is  able  to  decide  just  how  far  our 
course  of  action  should  deviate  from  what  it  has 
been  hitherto,  in  order  to  meet  the  demands  of 
the  divine  will  as  now  expressed,  in  a  rule  which 
has  never  been  seen,  and  which  no  hand  would 
venture  to  trace  with  any  claim  to  exactitude. 
Who,  then,  we  inquire  again,  is  sufficient  for  this 
task  ?  Not  one  among  the  millions  of  Protestants 
who  are  so  earnestly  clamoring  for  the  sanctity 
of  the  day  in  question  will  seriously  lay  claim  to 
the  ability  to  perform  that  which  would  at  once 
elevate  him  to  a  position — in  view  of  the  relief 
which  it  would  bring  to  thousands  of  troubled 
minds — more  exalted  than  that  of  any  saint  or 
martyr  who  has  ever  lived. 

Nor  is  this  all;  behind  all  this  pretentious 
claim  for  an  amended  law  are  very  many  indica- 
tions of  a  wide-spread  conviction — though  unde- 
fined and  liardly  recognized  by  the  individuals 
themselves — that  the  fact  upon  which  they  place 


SUXDAY  AND  THE  SABBATH.  27 

SO  miicli  stress  is,  after  all,  one  in  regard  to  whicli 
there  are  serious  doubts  in  their  own  minds.  As 
an  illustration  of  this,  we  have  but  to  call  atten- 
tion to  two  things.  First,  on  each  Loi'd's  day, 
so-called,  thousands  of  con crrc orations — after  de- 
voutly  listening  to  the  reading  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment of  the  decalogue,  word  for  word,  syl- 
lable for  syllable,  letter  for  letter,  precisely  as  it 
was  written  upon  the  table  of  stone  by  the  finger 
of  God — are  in  the  habit  of  responding  with  sol- 
emn cadence  to  the  utterances  of  the  preacher, 
"  O  Lord,  incline  our  hearts  to  keep  this  law." 
Now  this  prayer  means  something,  or  nothing. 
It  is  either  an  expression  of  desire,  on  the  part  of 
those  employing  it,  for  grace  to  enable  them 
rightly  to  observe  the  commandment  as  it  reads 
— seventh  day  and  all — or  else  it  is  a  solemn 
mockery,  Avhich  must  inevitably  provoke  the 
wrath  of  Heaven.  These  people,  therefore,  judg- 
ing from  the  most  charitable  stand-point,  are  wit- 
nesses— unconscious  though  they  may  be  of  the 
fact — of  a  generally  pervading  opinion  that  the 
verbiage  of  the  fourth  commandment  has  not 
been  changed,  and  that  it  is  as  a  wdiole  as  bind- 
ing as  ever.  Second,  nor  is  it  simply  true  that 
those  only  who  have  a  liturgy  have  committed 
themselves  to  this  idea.  It  is  astonishing  to 
what  extent  it  has  crept  into  creeds,  confessions 
of  faith,  church  disciplines,  and  documents  of  a 
like  nature.  But  amono-  the  most  strikinor  of  all 
evidences  of  its  universality,  when  properly  un- 


28  COX.STITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

derstood,  is  the  practice  of  nearly  all  religious  de- 
nominations of  printing,  for  general  distribution 
among  the  Sunday-school  scholars,  verbatim  cop- 
ies of  the  decalogue,  as  given  in  the  twentieth 
chapter  of  Exodus.  Yet  this  practice  would  be 
a  pernicious  one,  and  worthy  of  the  most  severe 
censure,  as  calculated  to  lead  astray  and  deceive 
the  minds  of  the  young,  if  it  Avere  really  tiiie 
that  this  code,  in  at  least  one  very  important  par- 
ticular, failed  to  meet  the  facts  in  the  case,  as  it 
regards  present  duty. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  a  change  of  the 
base  of  operations  becomes  indispensable.  A 
commandment,  altered  in  its  expressions  so  as  to 
vary  its  import,  and  yet  no  one  acquainted  with 
the  exact  terms  in  which  it  is  at  present  couched 
— and  all,  in  reality,  being  so  skeptical  upon 
the  point  that  even  its  most  ardent  advocates 
reason  as  if  it  had  never  occurred — would  cer- 
tainly furnish  a  foundation  altogether  insufficient 
for  the  mighty  superstructure  of  a  great  reform, 
which  proposes,  ere  the  accomplishment  of  its 
mission,  to  revolutionize  the  State. 


ARTICLE   III. 


Where,  then,  shall  we  turn  for  relief?  There 
is  one,  and  but  one,  more  chance. 

Acknowledging  that  the  law,  as  originally 
given,  will  not  answer  the  purpose,  and  that  its 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SADBATII.  29 

amendment  cannot  be  made  out  with  sufficient 
clearness  to  warrant  the  taking  of  a  stand  upon 
it,  we  turn,  for  the  last  time,  to  examine  a  posi- 
tion quite  generally  advanced ;  namely,  that  of 
Sunday  observance  inaugurated,  justified,  and 
enforced,  by  the  resurrection  and  example  of 
Christ.  Is  it  true,  then,  that  such  is  the  fact  ? 
Have  we,  at  last,  found  relief  from  all  our  diffi- 
culties in  the  life  and  career  of  no  less  a  person- 
age than  the  divine  Son  of  God  ?  Let  us  sec. 
The  point  of  the  argument  is  briefly  this  : — 
Our  Lord — by  rising  from  the  dead,  and  by 
his  practice  of  meeting  with  his  disciples  on  that 
day — both  introduced,  and  made  obligatory  upon 
his  followers,  the  necessity  of  distinguishing  be- 
tween the  first  and  the  remaining  days  of  the 
week,  as  we  w^ould  between  the  sacred  and  the 
profane.  Now,  if  this  be  a  case  which  can  be 
clearly  made  out,  then  we  are  immediately  re- 
lieved in  one  particular ;  that  is,  we  have  found 
authority  for  the  observance  of  the  Sunday.  But 
how  is  it  as  it  regards  the  seventh  day  ?  This, 
we  have  seen,  was  commanded  by  God  the 
Father.  The  obligation  of  that  command  is  still 
recognized.  Now,  consequently,  if  Christ  the 
Son  has,  u2)on  his  own  authority,  introduced 
another  day  immediately  following  the  seventh, 
and  clothed  it  with  divine  honors,  is  it  a  neces- 
sary inference  that  the  former  is  therefore  set 
aside?  To  our  mind,  it  is  far  from  being  such. 
If  God  has  a  law  for  the  observance  of  a  given 


30  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

day,  and  Christ  lias  furnished  us  with  an  exam- 
ple for  that  of  another  also,  then  the  necessary 
conclusion  is,  that  the  first  must  be  kept  out  of 
respect  for  God  the  Father,  and  the  last  through 
reverence  to  Christ  the  Son.  Three  facts,  there- 
fore, must  be  clearly  made  out,  or  our  situation 
is  indeed  one  of  perplexity. 

First,  it  must  be  shown,  authoritatively,  that 
the  resurrection  effected  the  change  which  is 
urged,  and  that  the  practice  of  Christ  was  what 
it  is  claimed  to  have  been. 

Second,  that  that  practice  was  designed  to  be 
exemplary ;  in  other  words,  that  what  he  did  in 
these  particulars  was  of  a  nature  such  that  we 
are  required  to  imitate  it 

Third,  it  must  also  be  shown  that  he  not  only 
sanctified  the  first,  but,  also,  that  he  secularized 
the  seventh  day  of  the  vreek. 

But  can  this  be  done  ?  Let  us  see.  First, 
then,  we  will  consider  the  matter  of  the  resur- 
rection. Now,  that  it  was  an  event  of  surpassing 
glory,  and  one  ever  to  be  held  in  grateful  re- 
membrance, there  is  no  room  for  dispute  among 
Christians.  But  shall  we,  therefore,  decide  that 
it  must  of  necessity  be  commemorated  by  a  day 
of  rest?  This  would  be  assuming  a  great  deal. 
It  seems  to  us  that  it  would  be  better,  far  better, 
to  leave  decisions  of  such  importance  as  this 
entirely  \vith  the  Holy  Spirit.  Protestants,  at 
least,  warned  by  the  example  of  Boman  Catholics, 
should  avoid  the  danger  of  attempting  to  admin- 


SU.NDAY    AND    THE    SABCATII.  31 

ister  in  the  matter  of  designating  holy  days; 
since,  manifestly,  this  is  alone  the  province  of 
God.  Hence,  we  inquire,  Has  the  Holy  Ghost 
ever  said  that  the  resuiTection  of^Christ  imparted 
a  holy  character  to  the  day  upon  whicli  it  occur- 
red ?  The  answer  must,  undeniably,  be  in  the 
neo-ative.     No  such  declaration  is  found  in  the 

o 

Holy  Word.  Nor  is  this  all;  even  from  the 
stand-point  of  human  reason,  every  analogy  is 
ao^ainst  it.  It  were  fittino^  that,  when  God  had 
closed  the  work  of  creation,  and  ceased  to  labor, 
he  should  appoint  a  day  in  commemoration  of 
that  rest.  The  propriety  of  such  a  course,  all 
can  see.  But,  on  the  contrary,  is  it  not  equally 
manifest  that  to  have  remained  inactive  on  that 
glorious  morning,  when  the  Son  of  God  had  burst 
the  bands  of  death,  and  the  news  was  flying 
through  all  parts  of  the  great  city  of  Jerusalem, 
''Jesus  has  risen  to  life  again,"  would  have 
been  a  condition  of  things  wholly  out  of  the 
question  ?  Both  the  enemies  and  the  friends  of 
Christ — the  one  class  stimulated  by  hate,  and  the 
other  released  by  the  mighty  power  of  God  from 
the  overwhelming  gloom  and  crushing  despond- 
ency of  three  terrible  days — were,  by  the  very 
necessities  of  the  case,  moved  to  action  by  an  en- 
ergy which  would  cause  them  to  overleap  every 
barrier  and  to  break  away  from  every  restraint. 
Everything,  everywhere,  animated  by  the  new 
aspect  which  affairs  had  suddenly  assumed, 
demanded    immediate,    ceaseless,   and    untiring 


32  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

activity.  And  such  it  had.  From  the  early 
morning,  until  far  into  the  hours  of  the  succeed- 
ing night,  scribe  and  Pharisee,  priest  and  Levite, 
believer  and  unbeliever,  were  hearing,  gathering, 
and  distributing,  all  that  could  be  learned  of  this 
most  mysterious  event.  We  say,  consequently, 
that  so  far  is  it  from  being  true  that  the  day  of 
the  resurrection  is  one  which  should  be  hallowed, 
either  exactly  or  substantially  as  that  of  tlui 
decalogue,  the  very  opposite  is  the  fact ;  and,  if 
it  were  to  be  celebrated  at  all,  ever}^  consideration 
of  fitness  demands  that  it  should  be  done  by  ex- 
cessive demonstrations  of  outward  and  uncon- 
trolled joy,  rather  than  by  quietude  and  restraint. 
Passino:  now  to  the  other  branches  of  the  sub- 
ject,  we  inquire,  finally.  What  was  there  in  the 
example  of  Christ  and  the  apostles  which  in  any 
way  affects  the  question  ?  If  they  are  to  be 
quoted  at  all  upon  this  subject,  it  is  but  reason- 
able that  their  history  should  be  examined  with 
reference  both  to  the  seventh  and  the  first  day ; 
for,  if  precedent,  and  not  positive  enactment,  is 
to  be  the  rule  by  which  our  faith  is  to  be  decided, 
in  a  point  of  this  significance,  it  is  at  least  pre- 
sumable that  the  historic  transactions  by  which 
this  question  is  to  be  determined  will  be  ample 
in  number,  and  of  a  nature  to  meet  and  explain 
all  the  phases  of  the  subject.  That  is,  the  Gos- 
pels and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles — covering,  as 
their  history  does,  a  period  of  about  thirty  j^ears 
— wil]  afford  numerous  and  conclusive  evidences 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SADBATII.  33 

tliat  both  Christ  and  the  apostles  did  actually 
dishonor  the  old,  and  invest  with  peculiar  dignity 
and  authority  the  new,  Sabbath.  First,  we  in- 
quire then.  Is  there,  in  all  the  New  Testament, 
the  record  of  a  single  instance  in  which  Jesus  or 
his  followers  transacted,  upon  the  seventh  day  of 
the  week,  matters  incompatible  with  the  notion 
of  its  original  and  continued  sanctity  ?  The 
answer  is,  of  necessity,  in  the  negative.  The 
most  careful  and  protracted  search  has  failed  to 
produce  a  single  case  in  which  the  son  of  Joseph 
and  Mary  departed  in  this  particular  from  the 
usages  of  his  nation,  or  in  which  his  immediate 
representatives,  during  the  period  of  their  ca- 
nonical history,  failed  to  follow,  in  the  most  scru- 
pulous manner,  the  example  of  Him  of  whom  it 
is  said  that,  "  as  his  custom  was,  he  went  into  the 
synagogue  on  the  Sabbath  day,  and  stood  up  for 
to  read."  (Luke  4:16.)  Nor  is  this  all ;  it  is  a 
remarkable  fact,  and  one  vrell  calculated  to  stag- 
ger the  investigator  at  the  very  threshold  of  hi^ 
researches  into  the  data  for  the  modern  view, 
that,  Avhereas  the  Sabbath  is  mentioned  fifty-six 
times  in  the  New  Testament,  it  is  in  every  in- 
stance, save  one  (where  it  refers  to  the  annual 
sabbaths  of  the  Jews),  applied  to  the  last  day  of 
the  week.  So  far,  therefore,  as  the  negative  ar- 
gument is  concerned,  which  was  based  upon  the 
presumption  that  the  claims  of  the  old  day  were 
const™ ctivel}"  annulled  by  the  appointment  of  a 
new  one,  its  force  is  entirely  broken  by  the  rec- 


34  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

ord,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  instead  of  proving 
such  an  abolition,  is  rather  suggestive  of  the 
perpetuity  of  the  old  order  of  things.  Hence,  we 
turn  to  the  positive  side  of  the  subject. 

How  do  we  know  that  Christ  ever  designed 
that  his  example  should  produce  in  our  minds 
the  conviction  that  he  had  withdrawn  his  regard 
from  the  day  of  his  Father's  rest,  and  placed  it 
upon  that  of  his  own  resurrection  ?  Did  he,  in 
laying  the  foundation  for  the  new  institution — 
as  in  the  case  of  the  Lord's  supper — inaugurate 
the  same  by  his  own  action,  and  then  say  to  his 
disciples.  As  oft  as  jq  do  this,  do  it  in  remem- 
brance of  me  ?  Did  he  ever  explain  to  any  indi- 
vidual that  his  especial  object  in  meeting  v/ith 
his  followers  on  the  evenings  of  the  first  and 
second  Sundays  (?)  after  his  return  from  the 
dead  v/as  designed  to  inspire  in  the  minds  of 
future  believers  the  conviction  that  those  hours, 
from  that  time  forward,  had  been  consecrated  to 
a  religious  use  ?  If  so,  the  record  is  very  imper- 
fect, in  that  it  failed  to  hand  down  to  us  a  most 
significant  fact.  I  say  significant,  because,  with- 
out such  a  declaration,  the  minds  of  common 
men,  such  as  made  up  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
immediate  followers  of  Christ,  were  hardly  com- 
petent to  the  subtile  task  of  drawing,  unaided, 
such  nice  distinctions.  How  natural,  how  easy, 
by  a  single  word,  to  have  put  all  doubt  to  rest, 
and  to  have  given  to  future  ages  a  foundation, 
broad  and  deep,  upon  which  to  ground  the  argu- 
ment for  the  change. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  35 

But  this,  as  we  have  ah-eady  seen,  was  not 
done  !  and  after  the  lapse  of  eighteen  hundred 
years,  men — in  the  stress  of  a  situation  which 
renders  it  necessary  tliat  they  should  obtain  di- 
vine sanction,  in  order  to  the  perpetuity  of  a 
favored  institution — are  ringing  the  changes  of 
an  endless  variety  of  conjectures  drawn  from 
transactions,  which,  in  the  record  itself,  were 
mentioned  as  possessing  no  peculiar  characteris- 
tics, which  should  in  any  way  affect  the  mere 
time  upon  which  they  occurred. 

Let  us,  therefore,  with  a  proper  sense  of  the 
modesty  with  which  we  should  ever  enter  upon 
the  task  of  deciding  upon  the  institutions  of  the 
church,  when  there  is  no  divine  precept  for  the 
guidance  of  our  judgment,  examine  for  ourselves. 
As  we  do  this,  it  Avill  be  well,  also,  to  bear  in 
mind  the  fact  that  our  prejudices  will  be  very 
likely  to  lie  entirely  upon  the  side  of  life-long 
practice  and  traditionary  inheritance.  In  fact, 
nearly  every  consideration,  political,  financial, 
and  social,  will  be  found,  if  not  guarded  with  the 
strictest  care,  wooinoj  us  to  a  decision  v>7hich — 
though  it  might  dishonor  God,  and  do  violence 
to  the  principles  of  a  clear,  natural  logic — would 
exempt  us,  individual}}^,  from  personal  sacrifice 
and  pecuniary  loss. 


36  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 


ARTICLE   IV. 


First,  then,  we  suggest  that  it  Avould  be  well 
to  collate  all  the  texts  in  the  New  Testament  in 
which  the  first  clay  of  the  Vv^eek  is  mentioned. 
They  are  as  follows  :  "  In  the  end  of  the  Sabbath, 
as  it  began  to  dawn  tovv^ard  the  first  da.y  of  the 
week,  came  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other  Mary 
to  see  the  sepulcher."     Matt.  28  : 1. 

"iVnd  when  the  Sabbath  was  past,  Mary  Mag- 
dalene, and  Mary  the  mother  of  James,  and  Sa- 
lome, had  bought  sweet  spices,  that  they  might 
come  and  anoint  Him.  And  very  early  in  the 
morning,  the  first  day  of  the  week,  they  came 
unto  the  sepulcher  at  the  rising  of  the  sun." 
Mark  16: 1,2. 

"Now  when  Jesus  was  risen  early  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  lie  appeared  first  to  Mary  Mag- 
dalene, out  of  whom  he  had  cast  seven  devils." 
MarklG:9. 

"And  they  returned,  and  prepared  spices  and 
ointments ;  and  rested  the  Sabbath  day,  accord- 
ing to  the  commandment.  Now  upon  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  very  early  in  the  morning,  they 
came  unto  the  sepulcher,  bringing  the  spices 
which  they  had  prepared,  and  certain  others  with 
them."     Luke  23  :  56,  and  24  : 1. 

"  The  first  day  of  the  week  comcth  Mary  Mag- 
dalene  early,  when  it   was   yet  dark,  unto  the 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  37 

sepulcher,  and  seetli  the  stone  taken  away  from 
the  sepulcher."     John  20  :  1. 

"  Then  the  same  day  at  evening,  being  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  when  the  doors  were  shut 
where  the  disciples  were  assembled  for  fear  of 
the  Jews,  came  Jesus  and  stood  in  the  midst,  and 
saith  unto  them,  Peace  be  unto  you."    John  20:19. 

"  Upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  let  every  one 
of  you  lay  by  him  in  store,  as  God  hath  pros- 
pered him,  that  there  be  no  gatherings  when  I 
come."     1  Cor.  1G:2. 

"And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  the 
disciples  came  together  to  break  bread,  Paul 
preached  unto  them,  ready  to  depart  on  the  mor- 
row; and  continued  his  speech  until  midnight." 
Acts  20 : 7. 

Doubtless  the  reader  is  not  a  little  surprised, 
provided  he  has  never  given  his  attention  to 
the  subject  before,  at  discovering  the  meager- 
ness,  so  far  as  numbers  at  least  are  concerned,  of 
the  passages  alluded  to  above.  Nevertheless,  let 
us  take  the  data  thus  furnished,  and  from  them 
endeavor  to  derive  all  the  information  which 
they  can  legitimately  be  made  to  afford.  At  first 
glance,  it  will  be  discovered  that  six  of  the  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  under  consideration  relate  to 
one  and  the  same  day,  which  was  that  of  the  res- 
urrection. Written  as  they  were  from  five  to 
sixty-two  years  this  side  of  that  occurrence,  and 
penned  by  men  who  were  profoundly  interested 
in  everything  which   was   calculated   to   throw 


38  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

light  upon  matters  of  duty  and  doctrine,  we 
would  naturally  expect  that  they  would  seize 
these  most  favorable  opportunities  for  instructing 
thoso  whom  they  were  endeavoring  to  enlighten 
in  regard  to  the  time  of,  and  circumstances  con- 
nected with,  the  change  of  the  Sabbath.  Let  us 
observe,  therefore,  hoAV  they  discharge  this  most 
important  responsibility.  It  will  not  be  urged 
by  any  that  John  20  : 1,  and  Mark  IG  :  9,  furnish 
anything  which  in  any  way  strengthens  the 
Sunday  argument.  The  statements  which  they 
contain  are  merely  to  the  effect  that  Mary  Mag- 
dalene was  the  one  to  whom  Christ  first  presented 
himself,  and  that  she  visited  the  tomb  very  early 
in  the  morning.  Neither  will  it  be  insisted  that 
the  declaration  found  in  Matt.  28 : 1,  and  Mark 
16 : 1,  2,  and  Luke  23  :  5G,  and  24  : 1,  afford  any 
positive  testimony  for  the  sanctity  of  the  first 
day  of  the  week.  On  the  contrary,  we  think 
that  every  candid  person  will  concede  that  the 
bearing  which  they  have  upon  the  subject  is 
rather  against,  than  favorable  to,  the  case  which 
our  friends  are  so  anxious  to  make  out.  To  il- 
lustrate :  In  Matt.  28 : 1,  we  read  that  "  in  the 
end  of  the  Sabbath,  as  it  began  to  dawn  toward 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  came  Mary  Magdalene, 
and  the  other  Mary,  to  see  the  sepulcher."  Again, 
in  Mark  16:1,  2,  the  same  general  fact  is  stated, 
with  the  simple  variation  that,  instead  of  the  ex- 
•  pression,  "  in  tlie  end  of  the  Sabbath,"  are  substi- 
tuted the  words, ''  when  the  Sabbath  was  passed," 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  39 

while  in  Luke  23:56,  and  24:1,  it  is  declared 
that  these  things  transpired  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  the  context  carefully  setting  forth  the 
fact  that  the  women  had  "  rested  upon  the  Sab- 
bath, according  to  the  commandment,"  and  that 
it  being  past,  they  came  to  the  sepulcher,  bring- 
ing w^th  them  the  spices  which  they  had  pre- 
pared. 

Novv^,  putting  all  these  things  together,  what 
have  we  learned  ?  Manifestly,  the  following 
facts  :  First ;  when  the  events  transpired  which 
are  set  forth  in  these  scriptures,  there  was  a  Sab- 
bath ;  since  it  is  stated,  by  way  of  locating  them 
in  point  of  time,  that  the  Sabbath  had  ended 
before  the  affairs  spoken  of  were  transacted. 
Secondly ;  that  the  Sabbath,  to  which  reference 
was  made,  was  the  seventh  day  of  the  week, 
since  it  preceded  the  first,  and  was  that  of  the 
commandment.  Thirdly ;  that,  if  the  first  day  of 
the  w^eek  was  a  Sabbath,  as  is  now  claimed,  the 
women  were  ignorant  of  it,  since  it  is  clear  that 
they  did  not  go  to  the  tomb  on  the  seventh  day 
to  embalm  the  body,  because  of  its  being  holy 
time ;  whereas,  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week 
their  scruples  were  gone,  and  they  came  to  the 
sepulcher,  bearing  their  spices  with  them,  to  ac- 
complish a  v/ork  which  they  would  not  have  re- 
garded as  legitimate  on  the  Sabbath.  Fourthly ; 
that  the  seventh  day  was  not  only  the  Sabbath 
at  the  time  mentioned,  but  also  that,  according 
to  the  convictions  of  the  historians,  it  was  the 


40  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

Sabbath  at  the  thue  of  their  writing — since  they 
apply  to  it  the  definite  article  "tJie;"  whereas, 
if  there  had  been  a  change  of  Sabbaths,  it  would 
have  been  natural  to  distinguish  between  them 
in  the  use  of  explanatory  words  and  phrases, 
such  as  are  noAV  applied,  as,  for  instance,  "the 
Jewish  Sabbath,"  "  the  Christian  Sabbath,"  &c., 
&c.  Fifthly;  that,  while  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke 
do, in  every  instance  cited  above, honor  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week  in  the  most  scrupulous  manner, 
by  applying  to  it  the  Bible  title  of  the  Sabbath, 
they  do,  nevertheless,  make  mention  of  the  day  of 
the  resurrection  in  each  case,  in  tlie  same  connec- 
tion, in  the  use  of  its  secular  name,  "  the  first  day 
of  the  Aveek."  A  slight  which  is  utterly  inexpli- 
cable, provided  the  latter  had  really  put  on  a  sa- 
cred character;  since,  that  being  true,  it  was 
much  more  important  that  its  new  claims  should 
be  recognized  and  inculcated  by  those  who  could 
speak  with  authority,  than  it  was  that  they 
should  perpetuate  the  distinction  of  a  day  whose 
honors  had  become  obsolete.  Having  now  exam- 
ined five  of  the  six  texts  under  consideration, 
there  remains  but  one  more  to  occupy  our  atten- 
tion. This  reads  as  follows :  "  Then  the  same 
day  at  evening,  being  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
when  the  doors  were  shut  where  the  disciples 
were  assembled  for  fear  of  the  Jews,  came  Jesus 
and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  saith  unto  them. 
Peace  be  unto  you.'"'  John  20  :  19.  Here,  again, 
we  are  struck  with  the  manifest  disposition  on 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABEATII. 


41 


the  part  of  John,  in  common  with  the  other 
evangelists,  to  avoid  the  application  of  any  sacred 
title  to  the  first  day  of  the  v/eek.  Twice,  in  this 
chapter,  he  makes  mention  of  that  which  is  now 
regarded  as  the  "  Queen  of  days,"  but  in  both  in- 
stances, he  avoids,  as  if  with  studied  care,  attach- 
ing to  it  any  denomination  by  which  its  superi- 
ority over  other  days  should  be  indicated.  How 
perfectly  in  keeping,  for  instance,  it  v/ould  have 
been  with  the  facts  as  they  are  noAv  claimed  to 
have  existed — as  well  as  with  the  interests  and 
desires  of  millions  who  have  since  lived — had  he 
in  the  text  before  us  so  varied  the  phraseology  of 
the  first  clause  that  it  would  read  as  follows : 
"  And  the  same  day  at  evening,  being  the  Chris- 
tian Sahhath,  when  the  disciples  were  assembled," 
«fec.  This,  however,  he  did  not  do,  and  we  in- 
quire of  the  reader,  right  here,  concerning  his 
onotivG  in  omitting  that  which  now  appears  to  us 
so  desirable,  and  which  would  have  been  perfectly 
legitimate  w^ere  the  views  of  our  friends  correct. 
Did  he  intentionally  omit  an  important  fact  ? 
Was  it  left  out  because  of  an  oversight  on  his 
part  ?  Or,  would  it  be  safer  to  conclude  that 
perhaps,  after  all,  the  difficulty  lies,  not  with  the 
apostle,  or  vrith  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  dictated 
his  language,  but  with  the  theory,  which  seems 
to  be  out  of  joint  with  his  utterances  ? 

Nevertheless,  as  it  is  still  urged  that,  in  the 
absence  of  a  positive  declaration,  this,  the  only 
remaining  text,  does  furnish  abundant  evidence 


42  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

of  the  sacred  regard  in  which  the  day  of  the  res- 
urrection was  held — since  it  gives  an  account  of 
a  religious  meeting  held  upon  it,  manifestly  for 
the  purpose  of  recognizing  its  heavenly  character 
— let  us  examine  more  critically  into  the  nature  of 
the  claims  which  are  based  upon  its  record.  That 
those  with  v/hom  we  differ  should  be  tenacious 
in  their  efforts  to  rest  their  cause  very  largely 
upon  the  account  found  in  John  20  :  19,  is  not  at 
all  surprising.  It  is  the  only  chance,  as  we  have 
seen,  which  is  left  them  of  basing  their  argument 
upon  a  passage  of  Scripture  which  relates  to  the 
day  of  the  resurrection.  So  far  as  1  Cor.  16:2, 
and  Acts  20  : 7,  are  concerned,  it  will  not  be  dis- 
puted by  any  that  their  testimony  is  merely  col- 
lateral evidence.  If  Sunday  has  become  the  Sab- 
bath, it  was  by  virtue  of  transactions  which  oc- 
curred immediately  in  connection  with  the  rising 
of  Christ.  In  other  words,  it  Avas  on  the  third 
day  after  the  crucifixion  that  Christ,  if  at  all,  be- 
gan to  impress  upon  the  minds  of  his  disciples 
the  Sabbatic  character  which  had  already  at- 
tached to,  and  was  henceforth  to  continue  in,  the 
day  wdiich  saw  him  a  conqueror  over  death  and 
the  grave. 

Nay,  more;  if  the  change  occurred  a  all,  it 
must  have  dated  from  the  very  moment  that  the 
angel  descended,  the  guard  was  stricken  down, 
and  the  Son  of  God,  glorified,  came  forth.  This 
beino:  the  case,  from  that  time  forward  it  would 
naturally  be  the  effort  of  Christ  to  produce  in 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SABCATII.  43 

the  minds  of  his  followers  the  conviction  of  this 
most  momentous  fact.  Every  action  of  his 
would  necessarily  be — if  not  directly  for  the  pur- 
pose of  imprinting  the  peculiar  sacredness  of  the 
hours  upon  those  by  whom  he  was  surrounded — 
at  least  of  a  character  such  as  to  impart  no  sanc- 
tion either  to  a  deliberate,  or  even  an  uninten- 
tional disregard,  on  the  part  of  any,  of  their  hal- 
lowed nature.  Hence,  our  friends,  seizing  upon 
the  fact  that  he  met  with  them  while  assembled 
together  in  the  after  part  of  the  day,  have  en- 
deavored to  clothe  the  incident  with  great  inter- 
est, and  have  largely  elaborated  their  arguments 
to  show  that  this  was  not  an  accidental  occur- 
rence, but  rather  partook  of  the  nature  of  a  re- 
ligious meeting,  Christ  himself  honoring  these 
instinctive  efforts  on  the  part  of  the  disciples  to 
act  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  hour,  by 
his  own  personal  presence. 

Before  we  sanction  this  view  of  the  subject, 
however,  let  us  give  our  attention  for  a  moment 
to  the  manner  in  which  the  previous  portion  of 
the  day,  then  closing,  had  up  to  that  point  been 
spent.  Certain  it  is,  that  Jesus  had  not,  during 
its  declining  hours,  been  suddenly  moved  by  a 
newly  created  impulse  for  the  accomplishment  of 
an  object  which  had  been  just  as  desirable  for 
twelve  hours  as  it  was  at  that  moment.  Sunday 
sanctity  had  already  become  a  fixed  fact,  and  its 
knowledore  as  essential  to  the  wc-U-bcintc  of  the 
disciples  in  the  morning,  as  at  the  evening.     We 


44  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

naturally  conclude,  therefore,  tliat  the  very  first 
opportunity  for  its  disclosure  would  have  been 
the  one  which  Christ  would  embrace.  This 
was  afforded  in  his  conversation  with  Maiy. 
But,  while  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  was  im- 
parted, it  is  at  least  presumable  that  she  was  left 
entirely  ignorant  of  it. 

The  second  occasion  was  presented  in  that  of 
the  journey  of  the  two  disciples  from  Jerusalem 
to  Emmaus,  a  distance  of  seven  and  a  half  miles. 
Jesus  walked  with  them  and  talked  with  them 
by  the  way,  reasoned  with  them  about  the  resur- 
rection, made  as  tliough  he  would  have  gone  far- 
ther, discovered  himself  to  them  in  the  breaking 
of  bread,  and  disappeared,  leaving  them  to  re- 
trace the  seven  and  a  half  miles  to  the  city,  with 
no  word  of  caution  against  it  on  his  part.  Nay, 
more ;  his  marked  approval  of  the  propriety  of 
the  act  might  properly  have  been  inferred  from 
the  fact  that  he  himself  accompanied  them  in  the 
first  instance,  in  the  garb  of  a  wayfaring  man ; 
at  the  same  time  acting  the  part  of  one  who  was 
so  far  convinced  of  the  rectitude  of  his  own  and 
of  their  action,  that  he  was  ready  to  continue  his 
journey  until  night  should  render  it  impractica- 
ble. (Luke  21^ :  28.)  Following  these  men  now, 
as  they  retrace  their  steps  to  the  city  from  which 
they  had  departed,  and  to  which  they  were  now 
returning — manifestly  all  unconscious  that  they 
were  trespassing  upon  time  which  had  been  res- 
cued from  that  which  might  properly  be  devoted 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SABBATH.  45 

to  secular  pursuits — let  us  observe  them,  as  tliey 
mingle  once  more  with  their  former  companions 
in  grief.  How  does  it  happen  that  they  are  con- 
gregated at  this  precise  point  of  time  ?  Is  it  be- 
cause they  have  at  last  discovered  the  fact  that 
it  has  been  made  in  the  special  sense  a  proper 
day  for  religious  assemblies  ?  If  so,  whence  have 
they  derived  their  conviction  ?  Certainl}^  not 
from  Mary,  or  the  two  disci])les  just  returning 
from  Emmaus.  Assuredly,  also,  not  from  Christ 
himself 

But,  again,  is  it  not  really  from  an  induction 
on  their  own  part,  by  which  they  liave  themselves 
discovered  the  fitness  of  making  the  day  of  resur- 
rection also  that  of  worship  ?  Listen  a  moment. 
Hear  their  excited  remarks  as,  at  this  juncture, 
they  are  joined  by  the  tw^o.  Do  you  catch  these 
w^ords,  "  The  Lord  is  risen  indeed,  and  hath  ap- 
peared to  Simon ''  ?  (Luke  24  :  34.)  Does  not 
this  establish  the  fact  of  their  confidence  in  the 
previous  report  ?  Unfortunately,  the  historian 
adds,  "  Neither  believed  they  them."  Here  they 
are,  then,  manifestly  still  doubting  the  very  fact 
which  some  have  thought  they  were  convened  to 
celebrate. 

But,  again,  what  is  the  ploxe  of  their  convoca- 
tion ?  Unquestionably,  neither  the  temple  nor  the 
synagogue.  The  record  states  that  wdiere  they 
were  assembled,  "  the  doors  were  closed  for  fear 
of  tlie  Jews."  Evidently,  they  were  in  some 
place  of  retirement  and  comparative  safety,  hid- 


4G  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

ing  away  from  the  fury  of  a  people  who,  in  their 
madness  and  cruel  hate,  had  crucified  even  the 
Lord  of  glory.  We  ask  again,  Where  v/ere  they  ? 
Let  Mark  explain.  Certainly  he  is  competent  to 
the  task.  When  describing  the  very  transaction 
we  are  considering,  he  says  :  "Afterward  he  ap- 
peared to  the  eleven  as  they  sat  at  meat,  and  up- 
braided them  with  their  unbelief  and  hardness  of 
heart,  because  they  believed  not  them  which  had 
seen  him  after  he  was  risen."  Mark  IG :  14. 
Here,  then,  is  the  clue  to  the  whole  matter.  It 
was  not  a  religious  meeting,  because  they  were 
in  a  frame  of  mind  to  be  censured,  rather  than 
applauded,  because  of  unbelief  It  was  merely 
the  body  of  the  apostles,  gathered  in  their  own 
quarters  for  the  purpose  of  partaking  of  an  even- 
ing meal,  where  they  were  in  the  habit  of  eating, 
and  drinking,  and  sleeping — and  where,  at  this 
time,  they  kept  particularly  close,  because  of  the 
perils  which  surrounded  them  on  every  hand. 
That  this  is  true,  is  farther  sustained  by  two  ad- 
ditional considerations. 

First ;  it  was  a  place  where  Christ  expected  to 
find  meat,  and  where  he  requested  such  for  his 
own  use,  and  was  supplied  from  their  bount}'' 
with  broiled  fish  and  an  honeycomb,  which,  the 
record  states,  "  he  took  and  did  eat  before  them." 
(Luke  24 :  41-43.) 

Secondly ;  that  they  were  in  possession  of  just 
such  a  rendezvous,  is  clearly  stated  in  John  20  : 
10,  where,  speaking  of  Peter  and  John  when  go- 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SABBATil.  47 

ing  from  the  sepulcher,  it  says,  "  They  went  away 
unto  their  own  home."  A  few  clays  later,  Luke 
declares  (Acts  1  :  13,)  that  when  they  came  in 
from  the  ascension,  they  ''  went  up  into  an  upper 
room,  where  abode  both  Peter,  and  James,  and 
John,  and  Andrew,  Philip,  and  Thomas ;  Bar- 
tholomew, and  MatthcAV,  James  the  son  of  Al- 
pheus,  and  Simon  Zelotes,  and  Judas  the  brother 
of  James." 

Thus,  by  a  natural  and  easy  combination  of 
the  facts  brought  to  view  by  the  inspired  pen- 
man, the  whole  matter  has  been  reduced  to  a 
simple  transaction,  such  as  might  have  been  re- 
peated many  times  during  the  forty  days,  and 
such  as — in  and  of  itself — fails  to  disclose  any 
evidence  that  the  occurrences  narrated,  either 
necessarily  or  presumptively,  afford  the  slightest 
justification  for  the  supposition  that  Christ  him- 
self either  designed,  or  that  the  apostles  might 
legitimately  conclude  that  he  intended,  by  join- 
ing them  under  these  familiar  circumstances,  to 
authorize  one  of  the  mightiest  innovations  upon 
the  practice  of  ages  which  the  world  has  ever 
seen. 


48  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 


ARTICLE   V 


Nor  is  this  matter  at  all  relieved  by  the  state- 
ment found  in  John  20  :  26,  that  after  eight  days, 
Thomas  being  present,  he  appeared  unto  them  a 
second  time  under  similar  circumstances.  For 
even  should  we  grant  that  this  was  on  the  next 
Sunday  evening — a  matter  in  which  there  is,  at 
least,  room  for  a  difference  of  opinion — the  subject 
is  merely  complicated  tlie  more,  so  far  as  the  view 
of  our  friends  is  concerned,  since  here  a  second 
opportunity,  and  that  a  most  excellent  one,  for 
calling  the  attention  of  the  disciples  to  the  new 
character  which  a  once  secular  day  had  assumed, 
was  entirely  neglected.  In  this  also,  as  in  the 
first  instance,  the  conversation  was  of  a  nature  to 
show  that  the  object  of  the  interview  was  to  give 
additional  evidence  (because  of  the  presence  of 
Thomas)  of  the  re-animation  of  the  body  of  Christ, 
without  any  reference  to  its  effect  upon  the  char- 
acter of  the  day  upon  which  it  occurred.  But 
such  silence,  under  such  circumstances,  in  regard 
to  so  important  a  matter,  is  in  itself  conclusive 
evidence  that  the  change  claimed  had  not  really 
taken  place.  Furthermore,  it  will  not  be  urged 
that  more  than  two  out  of  the  five  first-days 
which  occurred  between  the  resurrection  and  the 
ascension  were  days  of  assembly.  Had  they 
been — as  it  had  been  decided,  accordino^  to  the 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABI3ATII.  49 

view  of  those  urging  the  transition,  that  the 
Sunday  should  not  be  hallowed  by  positive  dec- 
laration, but  simply  inaugurated  by  quiet  prece- 
dent, then  the  presumption  is,  that  this  prece- 
dent, instead  of  being  left  upon  the  insufficient 
support  of  two  Sabbaths  out  of  five,  would  have 
been  carefully  placed  upon  the  whole  number. 
Nor  would  the  precaution  have  ended  here.  In 
a  matter  vital  in  its  nature,  certain  it  is  that  the 
honest  seeker  after  truth  would  not  be  left  to 
grojie  his  way  through  a  metaphysical  labyrinth 
of  philosophic  speculation  in  regard  to  the  effect 
of  certain  transactions  upon  the  character  of  the 
time  upon  which  the}^  occurred  ;  or  the  bearing 
of  certain  meetings  of  Christ  and  the  apostles 
upon  the  cpiestion  as  to  whether  Sunday  had  as- 
sumed a  sacred  character,  when  at  the  same  time 
his  perplexity  was  rendered  insupportable  by  the 
fact,  that  the  historian  states,  that  like  meeting-s 
occurred  on  days  for  v/hich  no  one  will  claim  any 
particular  honor. 

Take,  for  instance,  the  meeting  of  Jesus  with 
the  apostles  at  the  sea  of  Galilee  (John  21),  while 
they  were  engaged  in  a  fishing  excursion.  As- 
suredly, this  did  not  take  place  on  Sunday ;  else, 
according  to  the  view  of  our  friends,  they  would 
not  have  been  engaged  in  such  an  employment. 
Just  what  day  it  was,  no  one  is  able  to  decide ; 
but  all  agree  that  its  character  was  in  no  way  af- 
fected by  the  profoundly  interesting  interview 
which  occurred  upon  it  between  the  Master  and 


50  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

his  disciples.  If  it  were,  then  there  is  at  least 
one  holy  day  in  the  week  which  we  cannot  place 
in  the  calendar,  since  no  one  can  decide  Avhether 
it  was  the  first,  second,  third,  fourth,  fifth,  or 
sixth. 

If,  however,  you  would  have  a  still  more  forci- 
ble illustration  of  the  fact  that  religious  meetings, 
were  they  never  so  solemn,  can  in  nowuse  alter 
the  nature  of  the  hours  on  v/hich  they  occur,  let 
me  call  your  attention  to  the  day  of  the  ascen- 
sion (Acts  1).  Here  is  an  occasion  of  transcendent 
glory.  If  the  statements  in  the  sacred  narrative 
of  events,  which  transpired  during  its  hours,  could 
only  he  predicated  of  either  one  or  the  other  of 
the  first-day  meetings  of  Christ  with  his  disci- 
ples, it  would  at  least  be  with  an  increased  show 
of  reason  that  they  could  be  woven  into  the  tis- 
sue of  a  Sabbatic  argument.  Here  are  found 
many  of  the  elements  essential  to  the  idea  of  re- 
ligious services,  of  which  the  instances  in  ques- 
tion are  so  remarkably  destitute. 

In  the  first  place,  those  who  followed  our  Lord 
to  the  place  of  meeting  were  intelligent  believers 
in  the  fact  of  his  resurrection. 

In  the  second  place,  the  assembly  was  not  con- 
fined to  a  mere  handful  of  individuals,  seeking  for 
retiracy  v/ithin  an  upper  room  where  they  were 
in  the  habit  of  eating,  drinking,  and  sleeping; 
but  it  transpired  in  the  open  air,  where  Jesus 
was  in  the  habit  of  meetino-  with  his  followers. 

In  the  third  place,  the  con^j-reccation  was  made 


SUNDAY  AXD  THE  SABBATH.  51 

up  of  persons  v/hom  the  Holy  Spirit  had  thus 
brought  together  for  the  purpose  of  becoming  the 
honored  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  and  ascen- 
sion of  Christ. 

In  the  fourth  place,  it  was  graced  by  the  visi- 
ble forms  of  holy  angels  in  glistering  white,  who 
participated  in  the  services. 

In  the  fifth  place,  Jesus  himself  addressed  them 
at  length,  lifted  up  his  hands  to  heaven,  and 
brought  down  its  benediction  upon  them,  and  in 
the  sight  of  the  assembled  multitude,  steadily 
and  majestically  rising  above  them,  he  floated 
upward,  until  a  cloud  received  him  out  of  their 
sight. 

In  the  sixth  place,  it  is  said,  in  so  many  words, 
that  the  "people  vjorsldped  him  there." 

Now,  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument, 
that  some  modern  sect  should  endeavor  to  trans- 
form our  unpretending  Thursday,  which  was  re- 
ally the  day  of  the  ascension,  since  it  was  the 
fortieth  after  the  resurrection,  into  one  of  peculiar 
dignity,  claiming,  in  defense  of  their  position,  the 
example  of  Christ,  and  urging  that  the  course 
which  he  pursued  could  only  be  satisfactorily  ex- 
plained on  the  ground  that  he  was  laying  the 
foundation  for  its  future  Sabbatic  observance, 
how  would  our  friends  meet  them  in  such  an 
emergency  ?  Deny  the  facts,  they  could  not,  for 
the  record  is  ample.  There  would,  therefore,  be 
but  one  alternative  left. 

If  transactions  of  this  character  a,re  of  a  nature 


52  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

such  that  they  necessarily  exalt  the  days  upon 
which  they  occur  to  the  rank  of  holy  days,  then 
Thursday  is  one,  and  should  be  treated  as  such. 
No  line  of  argument,  however  ingenious,  could 
evade  this  conclusion,  so  long  as  the  premises  in 
question  were  adhered  to.  Planting  himself 
squarely  upon  them,  with  the  consent  of  modern 
Christendom,  the  advocate  of  the  newly  discov- 
ered holy  day,  finding  the  record  perfectly  free 
from  embarrassments  in  the  nature  of  transac- 
tions which  would  appear  to  be  incom|)atib]e 
with  the  notion  tliat  everything  which  Christ 
and  his  apostles  did  was  in  harmony  with  his 
view,  if  possessed  of  that  skill  and  ability  v/hich 
has  marked  the  efforts  of  some  modern  theolo- 
gians in  such  discussions,  could  weave  a  web  of 
inference  and  conjecture  almost  interminable  in 
its  length. 

All  the  facts  connected  with  the  meeting  could 
be  expanded,  and  turned  over  and  over,  and  ex- 
hibited from  innumerable  stand-points,  so  as  to 
yield  the  largest  amount  of  evidence  possible. 
Having  dwelt  at  large  upon  everything  which 
was  said  and  done  at  Bethany,  he  might  return 
with  the  solemn  procession  to  the  great  city. 
Having  done  this,  he  would  not  fail  to  call  our 
attention  to  the  fact  that  they  did  not  conduct 
themselves  in  a  manner  such  as  men  might  have 
been  expected  to  do  under  the  circumstances  on 
a  common  da}^,  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  im- 
pressed with  the  sacrcdness  of  the  hours  which 


SUNDAY    AND    TIIK    SADBATII.  53 

had  witnessed  the  glorious  ascension  of  the  Son 
of  God,  they  immediately  repaired  to  a  place  of 
assembly,  manifestly  for  the  purpose  of  continued 
worship.  Again,  scrutinizing  with  polemic  eye 
every  syllable  of  the  history,  in  order  to  extract 
from  it  all  the  hidden  testimony  which  it  might 
contain,  his  attention  would  be  arrested  by  these 
words,  "A  Sabbath  day's  journey."  Immediately, 
he  inquires,  Why  employ  such  an  expression  as 
this — one  which  occurs  nowhere  else  in  the  sacred 
volume  ?  Certainly  it  cannot  be  the  result  of 
accident.  The  Holy  Spirit  must  have  designed 
to  signify  sometldng  by  such  a  use  of  the  term 
in  the  connection  under  consideration.  A  Sab- 
bath day's  journey  !  What  importance  could  be 
attached  to  the  fact  that  the  particular  point  from 
which  Christ  ascended  was  no  more  than  a  Sab- 
bath day's  journey  from  Jerusalem  ?  The  ex- 
pression is  not  sufficiently  definite  to  designate 
the  precise  spot,  and  must,  therefore,  have  been 
employed  to  express  some  other  idea.  W^hat  was 
it  ?  Undeniably,  it  w^as  introduced  into  this  con- 
nection because  of  the  nature  of  the  time  on 
which  the  journey  occurred.  It  was  a  Sahhath 
day,  and,  as  such,  it  was  important  that  succeed- 
inc^  o-enerations  should  not  be  left  to  infer  from 
the  account  given,  that  it  was  a  matter  of  indif- 
ference to  the  Lord  how  far  travel  should  be  car- 
ried on  such  an  occasion ;  but,  on  the  contrary, 
that  he  was  jealous  on  this  point,  and  that  the 
expression  in   question  was  employed   to  show 


54  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

that  the  procession  of  Christ's  followers,  and  Christ, 
himself,  bowed  reverently  to  the  national  regula- 
tion respecting  the  distance  to  which  it  was 
proper  for  one  to  depart  from  his  home  during 
the  continuance  of  holy  time. 

But  this  line  of  argument,  though  plausible  in 
itself,  and  superior  in  fact  to  that  which  is  many 
times  used  to  support  the  tottering  fabric  of  first- 
day  observance,  would  not,  we  fancy,  persuade  an 
intelligent  public  to  introduce  a  new  Sabbath  into 
their  calendar.  The  verdict  which  even  those 
with  whom  we  differ  would  be  compelled  to  ren- 
der would  be  that  which  both  reason  and  piety 
would  dictate ;  namely,  that  the  fatal  defect  in 
the  logic  was  the  want  of  a  thus;  saith  the  Lord. 

Passing  now  from  the  first  six  of  the  eight 
texts  which  relate  to  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
let  us  give  to  1  Cor.  16:2,  and  Acts  20 : 7,  a  con- 
sideration of  sufficient  length  only  to  enable  us 
to  assign  to  them  the  proper  place  which  they 
should  occupy  in  this  controversy.  While  it  will 
be  observed  that  they  present  the  only  mention 
of  the  first  day  of  the  week  after  leaving  the  gos- 
pels, and  while  it  is  remembered  that  they  are 
separated  from  the  occurrences  there  narrated  by 
the  space  of  twenty-six  years,  it  is  a  remarkable 
fact  that  the  first  of  them,  if  not  in  itself  clearly 
against  the  conception  of  Sunday  sanctity,  at  least, 
affords  no  strength  for  the  argument  in  its  favor. 
It  reads  as  follows  :  "  Upon  the  first  day  of  the 
week  let  every  one  of  you  lay  by  him  in  store,  as 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABEATII.  55 

God  hatli  prospered  him,  that  there  be  no  gath- 
erings when  I  come."     1  Cor.  16:2. 

Now,  bear  in  mind  that  the  inference  here  is, 
that  the  gatherings  spoken  of  were  to  be  made 
in  the  assemblies  of  the  Corinthians,  the  pre- 
sumption following  that,  as  they  must  have  been 
in  the  habit  of  convening  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  the  apostle  took  advantage  of  this  fact  in 
order  to  secure  the  desired  collections  for  the 
saints  at  Jerusalem.  You  will  observe,  conse- 
quently, that  the  postulate,  or  assumed  point  in 
the  discussion,  is  that  the  Corintliians  were  at  the 
church,  or  place  of  meeting,  Vvdien  the  "  laying 
by,"  which  was  ordered  above,  took  place.  If, 
therefore,  this  be  not  true,  the  whole  logical  su- 
perstructure v/hich  rests  upon  it  necessarily  falls 
to  the  ground. 

Let  us  inquire  after  the  facts.  Does  the  apos- 
tle say.  Let  every  one  of  you  lay  by  himself  at 
the  church  ?  or,  does  he  command  that  his  pro- 
rata donation  should  be  placed  in  the  contribu- 
tion box  of  the  assembly  ?  We  answer :  There 
is  not  a  word  to  this  effect.  Nor  is  this  all ;  the 
very  idea  of  the  text  is  diametrically  opposed  to 
this  notion.  Before  the  contrary  can  be  shown 
to  be  true,  it  will  be  necessary  to  demonstrate 
that  which  is  absurd  in  itself;  namely,  the  prop- 
osition that  what  an  individual  has  voluntarily 
placed  beyond  his  own  reach  and  control  by  put- 
tino^  it  in  a  common  fund,  can,  at  the  same  time, 
be  said  to  be  ^'  laid  by  him  in  store," 


56  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT, 

» 

Furthermore,  Mr.  J.  W.  Morton,  a  gentleman 
wlio  has  given  the  subject  mature  reflection  and 
careful  investigation,  by  a  comparison  of  the  dif- 
ferent versions  and  the  original,  has  demonstrated 
the  fact  that,  if  properly  translated,  the  idea  of 
the  passage  is  simply  that,  for  the  purpose  of 
uniformity  of  action,  and  to  prevent  confusion 
from  secular  matters  when  the  apostle  himself 
should  arrive,  each  person  should  la,y  by  himself 
at  home  the  amount  of  his  charities  according  to 
his  ability.  AVe  give  the  following  from  his  pen  : 
"  The  whole  cjuestion  turns  upon  the  meaning  of 
the  expression,  '  by  him ;'  and  I  marvel  greatly 
how  you  can  imagine  that  it  means,  '  in  the  col- 
lection box  of  the  congregation.'  Greenfield,  in 
his  lexicon,  translates  the  Greek  term,  '  by  one's 
self;  i.  e.,  at  home.'  Two  Latin  versions — the 
Yulgate,  and  that  of  Castellio — render  it,  '  a2ntd 
sc,'  with  one's  self,  at  home.  Three  French  trans- 
lations, those  of  Martin,  Osterwald,  and  De  Sacy, 
chez  soi,'  at  his  own  house,  at  home.  The  Ger- 
man of  Luther,  '  hei  sicli  selhst'  by  himself,  at 
home.  The  Dutch,  '  by  hemselven,'  same  as  Ger- 
man. The  Italian  of  Diodati,  '  a'ppressio  di  se,' 
in  his  own  presence,  at  home.  The  Spanish  of 
Felipe  Scio,  '  en  su  casa,'  in  his  own  house.  The 
Portuguese  of  Ferrara,  'para  isso'  with  himself 
The  Swedish,  '  ncer  sig  sielf'  near  himself  I 
know  not  how  much  this  list  of  authorities  might 
be  swelled,  for  I  have  not  examined  one  transla- 
tion that  differs  from  those  quoted  above." — Vin- 
dication of  the  True  Sahhaih,  p.  61. 


SUNDAY   AND   THE    SABBATir.  57 

The  simple  fact  is,  therefore,  that  while  the  text 
in  question  yields  no  proof  that  Sunday  was  then 
regarded  as  a  day  of  convocation,  it  was  one  which 
might  be  encumbered  with  matters  which  would 
necessarily  call  attention  to  the  pecuniary  affairs 
of  individual  Christians,  and  so  avoid  the  neces- 
sity of  their  giving  thought  to  such  things  when 
Paul  himself  should  arrive ;  thereby  preventing 
delay  on  his  part,  and  leaving  them  free  to  de- 
vote their  whole  time  to  the  consideration  of  re- 
ligious themes.     Thus  much  for  1  Cor.  16:2. 


ARTICLE    VI. 


Advancing  now  to  the  remaining  scripture, 
which  is  found  in  Acts  20  :  7,  we  append  its  words 
as  follows  :  "  And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
when  the  disciples  came  together  to  break  bread, 
Paul  preached  unto  them,  ready  to  depart  on  the 
morrow;  and  continued  his  speech  until  mid- 
night." By  reading  that  which  immediately  fol- 
lows the  above,  we  shall  learn  the  following  facts  : 
First,  that  here  is  indeed  a  record  of  a  religious 
meeting  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  (verse  7). 
Second,  that  it  was  held  in  that  portion  of  the 
day  when  the  darkness  prevailed,  since  it  was 
necessary  to  employ  many  lights  (verse  8).  Third, 
that  Paul  preached  unto  them,  and   that,  while 


58  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT, 

lie  was  speaking,  Eutyclius  fell  to  the  ground ; 
and  Paul,  having  restored  him  to  life,  returned  to 
his  labor  (verses  7-11).  Fourth,  that  he  broke 
bread,  or  administered  the  Lord's  supper  (verse 
11).  Fifth,  that  he  preached  until  break  of  day 
(verse  11).  Sixth,  that  Luke,  and  the  other  dis- 
ciples, preceding  him,  sailed  the  vessel  to  Assos 
(verse  13).  Seventh,  that  Paul,  having  preached 
all  night,  until  the  dawning  of  the  day,  crossed 
the  country  on  foot,  stepped  aboard  of  the  vessel, 
and  went  on  his  journey  toward  Jerusalem  (verses 
13,  14).  Now  let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  that  Troas 
was  a  city  on  the  west  coast  of  Asia,  located  at 
the  base  of  a  peninsula,  on  the  opposite  side  of 
which  lay  the  city  of  Assos ;  distant  about  nine- 
teen and  a  haJf  miles  in  direct  line  from  the 
former  place.  Let  it  also  be  remembered  that 
the  promontory  in  question,  projecting  as  it  did 
into  the  sea  for  some  miles,  made  it  necessary  for 
a  vessel,  passing  from  Troas  to  Assos,  to  traverse 
a  much  greater  distance,  and  to  consume  more 
time  than  one  would  be  compelled  to  do  in  pass- 
ing from  one  of  these  points  to  the  other  by  the 
overland  route.  This  explains  the  reason  why 
Paul,  who  was  exceedingly  anxious  to  spend  all 
the  time  he  could  with  the  brethren,  consented  to 
perform  the  journey  on  foot ;  thus  being  enabled 
to  spend  several  additional  hours  with  them, 
while  Luke  and  his  associates  were  toiling  to 
bring  the  boat  around  the  headland  to  the  place 
of  the  apostle's  final  embarkation. 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SABBATH.  59 

Returning  now  to  the  consideration  of  the 
meeting  in  question,  it  becomes  important  to  know 
just  when  it  was  entered  upon.  Did  it  answer 
to  what  we  Vv^ouid  call  a  Sunday-evening  meet- 
ing ?  If  so,  then  Paul  resumed  his  journey  on 
Monday  morning.  But,  before  we  give  an  af- 
firmative response  to  this  question,  would  it  not 
be  well  to  inquire  in  relation  to  the  system  for 
computing  time  which  ought  to  be  followed  in 
this  case  ?  We  moderns  have  generally  adopted 
that  of  the  Romans.  With  it,  beginning  tlie  da.y, 
as  it  does,  at  midnight,  we  would  naturally  an- 
swer the  interrogatory  above  in  the  affirmative. 
Should  we  do  this,  however,  we  should  unques- 
tionably fall  into  a  grievous  error.  The  days  of 
the  Bible  commenced  invariably  with  the  setting 
of  the  sun. 

That  this  is  so,  the  following  quotation  from 
the  American  Tract  Society's  Bible  Dictionary  is 
sufficient  to  demonstrate  :  "  The  civil  day  is  that, 
the  beginning  and  end  of  which  are  determined 
by  the  custom  of  any  nation.  The  Hebrews  be- 
gan their  day  in  the  evening  (Lev.  23  :  32)  ;  the 
Babylonians  at  sunrise,  and  we  begin  at  mid- 
night."    Art.  Day,  p.  114. 

Reasoning,  therefore,  upon  this  hypothesis,  the 
bearing  of  the  text  is  immediately  reversed.  As 
the  meeting  was  held  in  that  portion  of  the  first 
day  of  the  week  in  which  it  was  necessary  that 
lamps  should  be  lighted,  it  follows  tliat  it  com- 
menced with  the  setting  of  the  sun  on  Saturday 


GO  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

evening,  and  continued  until  da^dight  on  what 
we  call  Sunday  morning.  It  is  consequently 
clear  that  we  have  at  last  found  one  first  day  in 
the  Scriptures,  the  first  half  of  which  was  ob- 
served in  a  manner  compatible  with  the  idea  of 
its  being  regarded  as  a  Sabbath.  But,  as  a  Sab- 
bath day  is  twenty-four,  and  not  merely  twelve, 
hours  long,  it  is  indispensable  that  those  who 
seek  to  avail  themselves  of  the  record  before  us, 
should  be  able  to  establish  the  point  that  there  is 
nothino^  in  it  which  would  efo  to  show  that  the  re- 
maining  portion  of  the  day  was  devoted  to  pur- 
poses, and  employed  in  a  manner,  irreconcilable 
with  the  hypothesis  of  its  sanctity.  Can  they  do 
this  ?  Let  us  see.  Would  it  be  legitimate  for  be- 
lievers at  the  present  time  to  traverse  on  foot  a 
distance  of  nineteen  and  a  half  miles  between 
the  rising  and  the  setting  of  the  sun,  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  in  order  to  pursue  a  journey  to- 
ward a  point  of  destination  hundreds  of  miles  in 
the  distance  ?  Would  it  be  admissible  for  others, 
prosecuting  the  same  journey,  to  weigh  anchor 
and  hoist  sail  in  a  friendly  port,  and  coast  along 
the  shore  for  a  much  greater  distance  ? 

Who,  among  the  friends  of  Sunday  observance 
at  the  present  time,  would  venture  to  answer 
these  questions  in  the  affirmative,  without  put- 
ting on  the  record  some  qualifying  or  explana- 
tory clause  ?  We  hazard  the  assertion  that  few  of 
them,  conscientious  as  we  believe  many  of  them 
are,  would  be  willing,  by  such  a  response,  to  place 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  Gl 

themselves  on  the  category  of  those  who,  to  say 
the  least,  may  have  very  lax  views  in  regard  to 
what  may  be  done  upon  holy  time.  And  yet 
this  is  precisely  the  situation  in  which  Luke  has 
left  Paul,  himself,  and  his  associates,  before  the 
generations  of  Christians  who  were  to  follow 
them. 

We  ask,  therefore,  again,  Can  it  be  true  tliat 
the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  standing  as  a 
fcju-esentative  man  in  the  great  w^ork  of  trans- 
ferrin n^  the  reliixious  Avorld  from  the  observance 
of  the  seventh,  to  that  of  the  first,  day  of  the 
week,  and  this  not  by  positive  precept,  but,  as  it 
is  claimed,  simply  by  precedent  and  example, 
should  have  allowed  himself  to  throw  that  exam- 
ple, as  in  the  case  before  us,  against  the  very  work 
which  he  was  seeking  to  accomplish  ?  In  other 
words,  is  not  the  obvious  import  of  the  text  sucli 
that  the  average  reader,  with  no  favorite  theory 
to  make  out,  and  a  mind  unbiased  by  the  effect 
of  education  and  early  training,  would  naturally 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  Paul  and  the  disci- 
ples with  him,  and  those  from  whom  he  parted 
at  Troas,  looked  upon  the  day  of  that  departure 
as  but  a  common  one  ? 

We  believe  that  if  any  other  meaning  can  be 
drawn  from  the  history  before  us,  it  will  be 
reached  through  constraint,  and  not  through  tiie 
easy  process  of  obvious  reason.  It  is  useless  to 
talk  about  inability  to  control  the  vessel,  and  the 
urgent  necessity  of  occupying  every  hour  in  or- 


62  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

cler  to  reach  Jerusalem  in  time  for  the  feast.  So 
far  as  the  first  of  these  points  is  concerned,  if  it 
were  well  taken,  is  it  not  to  be  presumed  that, 
for  the  vindication  of  the  course  pursued,  and  for 
the  benefit  of  posterity,  it  would  have  found  a 
place  in  the  sacred  record  ? "  And  as  to  the  mat- 
ter of  limited  time,  the  question  of  tv/elve  hours 
longer  or  shorter,  was  immaterial  in  a  journey  of 
the  leng^th  of  the  one  under  consideration.  Be- 
sides,  upon  following  the  account  as  given,  we 
we  have  from  Luke  himself  that,  before  they 
reached  their  destination,  they  stopped  at  Tyre 
for  seven  days  (chap.  21  :  4),  and  at  Cesarea,  many 
days  (chap.  21  :  10),  and  yet  had  ample  time  to 
accomplish  their  object  in  reaching  Jerusalem  be- 
fore the  feast. 

We  say  again,  therefore,  that  these  considera- 
tions, in  the  absence  of  any  allusions  to  them  in 
the  context,  are  simply  gratuitous,  or,  at  least, 
are  far-fetched.  The  narrative  still  remains. 
The  great  fact  that  Paul  and  his  followers  did 
travel  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  is  made 
conspicuous,  and  the  only  legitimate  conclusion 
to  be  drawn  therefrom  is  that  which  alone  har- 
monizes with  the  consistency  of  Paul's  life  and 
that  of  his  brethren,  as  well  as  the  wisdom  and 
beneficence  of  the  great  God,  namely :  That  he 
did  so  because  of  his  conviction  that  it  v/as  a  day 
v\^hich  might  properly  be  devoted  to  labor  and 
travel.  With  this  understanding,  the  story  is 
relieved   of  all   embarrassment,  and   becomes  a 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SACCATII.  63 

simple  and  highly  interesting  account  of  a  meet- 
ing convened  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  because 
of  the  approaching  departure  of  a  beloved  brother 
and  apostle,  and  rendered  also  worthy  of  record 
by  the  miracle  which  was  performed  upon  Euty- 
chus.  But  with  such  a  decision,  our  labor  is 
ended,  and  with  it  the  whole  theory  in  regard  to 
the  Sabbatic  character  of  Sunday  is  exploded; 
for,  not  onl}^  does  the  scripture  which  we  have 
been  investigating  fail  to  yield  the  doctrine 
which  it  was  supposed  to  contain,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  it  presents  Paul  as  standing  emphatic- 
ally against  it.  This  being  true,  it  belongs  to  a 
faith  which  he  never  proclaimed,  and  which, 
consequently,  was  associated  in  his  mind  with 
that  which  should  not  be  received,  though  it  were 
"  preached  by  an  angel  from  Heaven." 

Nevertheless,  that  we  may  not  appear  to  have 
overlooked  the  two  remaining  texts,  which  are 
generally  cjuoted  as  affording  additional  proof  of 
the  distinguished  regard  in  which  the  first  day 
of  the  week  was  held,  we  turn  our  attention  for 
a  moment  to  Acts  2:1,  and  Rev.  1  :  10. 

As  it  regards  the  first  of  these  scriptures,  the 
claim  is,  that  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  oc- 
curred with  reference  to  a  divine  disposition  to 
honor  the  day  of  the  resurrection.  To  this  we 
repty,  first,  that  if  this  were  so,  it  is  a  remarkable 
fact  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  connection  to 
show  it.  The  name  of  the  day,  even,  is  not  so 
much  as  mentioned.     The  inspired  annalist,  were 


G4  CONSTlTUTIONxVL   AMENDMENT. 

this  supposition  true,  would  most  assuredly  have 
given  prominence  to  an  idea  which,  it  is  claimed, 
was  the  governing  one  in  the  mind  of  the  Spirit, 
in  order  to  enable  succeeding  generations  to 
extract  from  the  facts  narrated  the  true  moral 
which  they  were  intended  to  convey.  But  mark 
Ixis  words.  Is  the  declaration, ''When  the  first 
day  of  the  week  was  fully  come"?  If  so,  we 
might  say  that  tliis  day  was  foremost  in  his  own 
mind,  and  in  that  of  the  Spirit. 

But  such  was  not  his  language.  On  the  con- 
trary, his  statement  is,  "  When  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost was  fully  come."  Hence,  it  was  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  or  the  great  Jewish  feast,  which  is 
here  made  to  stand  out  conspicuously  upon  the 
sacred  page.  If,  therefore,  we  are  to  decide  that 
the  transaction  in  question  was  intended  to  hal- 
low any  particula^r  tv/enty-four  hours,  undenia- 
bly they  were  those  within  which  the  Pentecost 
fell.  But  those  did  not  occur  regularly  upon  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  nor  was  the  institution  one 
of  weekly  recurrence.  It  was  annual  in  its  re- 
turn, transpiring  one  year  upon  the  first,  and 
perhaps  the  next  year  upon  the  second,  and 
so  on,  through  every,  day  of  the  week.  To 
reason,  consequently,  that,  because  it  happened 
to  take  place  at  this  time  upon  Sunday,  the  fact 
is  necessarily  significant  of  a  change  in  the  char- 
acter of  the  clay,  is  altogether  inconclusive. 

That  were  a  cheap  logic  indeed,  which  would 
argue  that  the  Pentecost,  which  was  mentioned 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATU.  65 

expressly,  and  the  return  of  which  was  waited 
for  with  patience,  was  in  no-wise  affected,  illus- 
trated, or  perpetuated,  by  the  outpouring  of  the 
Spirit  upon  it,  whereas,  a  septenary  division  of 
time — not  thought  worthy  of  mention  by  its 
peculiar  title — was  thenceforth  rendered  glori- 
ous. Stand  together,  however,  they  cannot ;  for, 
if  it  were  the  Pentecost  which  was  to  be  handed 
down  in  this  way  to  those  who  should  come 
after,  then  it  would,  of  necessity,  be  celebrated 
annually,  and  not  each  week ;  but,  if  it  were  the 
first  day  of  the  v/eek  which  alone  was  made  the 
object  of  divine  favor,  then  why  wait  until  the 
arrival  of  the  great  annual  Sabbath  at  the  end  of 
the  fifty  days  ?  Why  was  not  some  other  first 
day  taken — say  one  of  the  six  which  had  already 
occurred  between  the  resurrection  and  that  time 
— in  this  manner  avoiding  the  ^possibility  of  con- 
fusion as  to  which  event  was  thus  honored  ? 

Should  it  be  replied  that  the  Spirit  could  not 
be  poured  out  until  the  great  antitype  of  the 
fifty-day  feast  had  been  met  in  Heaven,  we  an- 
swer :  Then  it  was  this  event,  and  not  the  res- 
urrection, which  furnishes  the  occasion  for  the 
remarkable  demonstrations  which  were  mani- 
fested before  the  people.  We  repeat  again, 
therefore,  that  from  whatever  stand-point  we 
look  at  the  text,  it  is  the  Pentecost,  and  not  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  to  which,  if  to  anything,  it 
attaches  special  importance.  This  is  further 
demonstrated  by  the  fact  that  it  is  to  tliis  hour 


66  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

a  matter  of  grave  discussion  between  theologians 
whether  the  day  of  Pentecost,  at  the  time  under 
consideration,  did  really  fall  upon  the  first  day 
of  the  week  or  upon  some  other.  Leaving  to 
them,  therefore,  the  delicate  and  arduous  task  of 
adjusting  questions  of  this  nature — which  are 
neither  important  in  themselves,  nor  easy  of  de- 
cision— we  hasten  to  glance  at  Rev.  1  :  10.  It 
reads  as  follows:  "I  was  in  the  Spirit  on  the 
Lord's  day,  and  heard  behind  me  a  great  voice, 
as  of  a  trumpet." 

Here  is  something  which  certainly  has  a  bear- 
ing upon  the  subject.  The  language  employed  is 
of  thrilling  interest.  Says  the  apostle,  ''  I  was  in 
the  Spirit  on  the  Lord's  day."  This  being  ut- 
tered about  A.  D.  95,  determines  the  point  that 
God  has  a  day  in  this  dispensation,  and  also 
proves  that  he  has  but  one ;  since  the  language 
would  be  very  indefinite  were  there  two  or  more 
days  of  such  a  nature.  But  by  what  system  of 
reasoning  is  the  conclusion  reached  that  this  must 
of  necessity  be  the  first  day  of  the  week  ?  As- 
suredly, it  can  only  be  by  inference.  If  it  can 
first  be  proved  that  the  day  of  the  resurrection 
has,  by  divine  authority,  been  anywhere  styled 
the  "  Lord's  day,"  then  the  point  is  unquestiona- 
bly gained.  When  those  words  were  penned, 
more  than  sixty  years  had  passed  since  it  is 
claimed  that  Sunday  had  been  clothed  with  di- 
vine honor.  The  whole  canon  of  the  New  Test- 
ament, save  the  gospel  of  John,  had  been  written 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  67 

within  that  time.  Ample  opportunity  had  been 
afforded  for  the  work  of  placing  upon  record  the 
sacred  appellation  which  was  to  be  given  to  that 
period  of  time,  which,  having  been  separated 
from  everything  of  a  secular  nature,  had  been 
elevated  to  the  dignity  of  a  holy  rest.  But  had 
this  ever  occurred  ?  The  facts  are  briefly  these  : 
The  first  day  of  the  week,  as  we  have  seen,  being 
mentioned  eight  times  in  the  New  Testament,  is 
always  spoken  of  as  plain  first  day  of  the  week ; 
John  himself,  writing  his  gospel  after  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  Apocalypse,  everywhere  applies 
to  it  this  unpretending  title.  Whenever  the 
term  Sabbath  is  used,  on  the  other  hand — as  we 
have  seen  that  it  is  fifty-six  times  in  the  New 
Testament — it  is  applied,  with  one  exception,  to 
the  Sabbath  of  the  commandment,  or  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  take  a  common  man, 
v/ithout  bias  or  predilection,  one,  if  you  please, 
who  has  never  heard  of  the  controversy  in  ques- 
tion, place  in  his  hands  the  Bible  without  note 
or  comment,  let  him  read  the  following  texts 
which  confessedly  refer  to  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week,  and  we  think  the  verdict  which  he  v/ould 
render  would  be  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  vener- 
able Sabbath  of  the  Lord ;  of  which  it  is  true,  as 
it  is  of  no  other  day,  that  he  has  again  and  again 
claimed  it  as  his  own.  The  italics  are  our  own. 
"  If  thou  turn  away  thy  foot  from  the  Sahhath, 
from  doing  thy  pleasure  on  'my  holy  day ;  and 


68  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

call  the  Sabbatli  a  delight,  the  lioly  of  the  Lord, 
honorable ;  and  shalt  honor  him,  not  doing 
thine  own  ways,  nor  finding  thine  own  pleasure, 
nor  speaking  thine  own  words ;  then  shalt  thou 
delight  thyself  in  the  Lord."     Isa.  58:13,  14. 

"But  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sahhath  of  the 
Lord  thy  God:  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work  : " 
"  for  in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth, 
the  sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is,  and  rested  the 
seventh  day ;  wherefore  the  Lord  blessed  the  Sah- 
hath day,  andhaUoiued  it."     Ex.  20  :  10,  11. 

"And  he  said  unto  them,  The  Sabbath  was  made 
for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath ;  therefore 
the  Son  of  man  is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath." 
Mark  2  :  27,  28. 

If  such  a  decision  be  a  just  one,  however,  where 
are  we  in  the  matter  under  examination  ?  What 
has  become  of  the  modern  Sabbath  reform  for 
which  we  have  been  seeking  justification  in  the 
word  of  God  ?  First,  we  sought  to  place  it  upon 
the  commandment ;  this,  we  found  to  be  out  of 
the  question.  Second,  we  investigated  the  claim 
of  an  amended  law  ;  that,  we  discovered  to  be  en- 
tirely without  authority,  and  against  even  the 
conviction  and  practice  of  the  very  men  who 
urofed  it.  Third,  we  turn,  as  a  last  resort,  to  the 
precedents  of  Bible  history ;  these,  we  found,  so 
far  as  they  afiect  the  question  at  all,  to  be  over- 
whelmingly against  a  movement  which,  v/hile  it 
claims  to  be  in  the  interest  of  the  God  of  Heaven, 
is  confronted  by  the  following  astounding  facts  : 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  69 

First,  the  day  whose  observance  it  seeks  to  en- 
force by  statute  law  is  one,  the  keeping  of  which, 
God  has  never  commanded.  Second,  Christ  has 
never  commanded  it.  Third,  no  inspired  man 
has  ever  commanded  it.  Fourth,  God"  himself 
never  rested  upon  it.  Fifth,  Christ  never  rested 
upon  it.  Sixth,  there  is  no  record  that  either 
prophets  or  apostles  ever  rested  upon  it.  Sev- 
enth, it  is  one  upon  which  God  himself  worked. 
Eighth,  it  is  one  which,  during  his  lifetime,  Christ 
always  treated  as  a  day  of  labor.  Ninth,  it  is 
one  upon  which,  after  his  resurrection,  he  coun- 
tenanced, by  his  own  personal  example,  travel 
upon  the  highway.  Tenth,  it  is  one  upon  which 
the  two  disciples,  in  going  to  and  returning  from 
Emmaus,  traveled  a  distance  of  fifteen  miles. 
Eleventh,  it  was  on  that  day  that  Paul  walked 
from  Troas  to  Assos,  a  distance  of  nineteen  and 
one-half  miles.  Twelfth,  it  was  on  that  day  that 
Luke  and  his  associates  passed  from  one  to  the 
other  of  these  places  by  a  longer  route,  working 
their  vessel  round  the  promontor}^. 

That  all  these  things  could  be  true,  and  yet 
our  friends  be  right  in  the  supposition  that  they 
are  engaged  in  a  work  which  commands  the  ap- 
proval of  Heaven,  is  too  absurd  to  require  fur- 
ther discussion.  A  movement  pushed  forward  in 
the  face  of  these  facts  may  succeed,  so  far  as  po- 
litical success  and  legal  enactment  are  concerned, 
but  when  the  logic  for  its  Scriptural  character  is 
scrutinized  as  closely  as  it  will  be  before  it  shall 


70  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

plant  its  banners  upon  the  capitol  of  the  nation, 
all  conscientious  convictions  in  regard  to  its  heav- 
enly birth  will  give  place  to  an  inspiration,  the 
source  of  whose  strength  will  be  found  in  the  su- 
periority of  party  drill,  and  the  overwhelming 
power  of  mere  numbers.  Who  shall  say  that  the 
God  of  Heaven  has  not  permitted  it  to  come  to 
the  surface  for  the  very  purpose  of  calling  the  at- 
tention of  honest  men  and  women,  as  it  only 
could  be  done  by  the  debate  which  will  arise  in 
controversy,  to  the  scantiness  of  that  Sunday 
wardrobe  by  which,  as  with  it  our  friends  at- 
tempt to  clothe  a  favorite  institution,  we  are  so 
forcibly  reminded  of  the  bed  and  covering  spoken 
of  by  the  prophet  Isaiah  :  The  first  of  which  was 
"  too  short  to  stretch  one's  self  upon,"  and  the  last, 
"  too  narrow  to  wrap  one's  self  within  ?"  So  sure 
as  investigation  is  provoked  upon  this  subject,  so 
certain  is  it  that,  sooner  or  later,  thinking  men 
and  women  v/ill  discover — as  we  have  already 
done  in  this  article — that  there  is  indeed  a  crying 
demand  for  a  Sabbath  reform.  Not  one,  however, 
which  rests  merely  upon  the  power  of  Congres- 
sional enactment,  and  Presidential  sanction,  but 
one  which  shall  find  its  authority  in  the  highest 
of  all  laws,  and  which  shall  have  the  approval  of 
the  Kinor  of  kino-s  and  Lord  of  lorrls. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  71 


ARTICLE    YII. 


The  conflict  is  finally  open.  The  spirit  of  in- 
quuy  has  lifted  itself  in  the  nation ;  and  all  eyes 
will  be  turned  toward  the  Bible,  as  really  the 
only  source  from  which  can  be  derived  authority 
for  a  Sabbath  reform  which  shall  be  worthy  of 
the  name. 

Commencing  with  its  opening  pages,  they  will 
trace  the  Sabbatic  narrative  until  they  have  been 
able  to  verify  the  following  summary  of  history 
and  doctrine : — 

1.  The  Sabbath,  as  the  last  day  of  the  week, 
originated  in  Eden,  and  was  given  to  Adam,  as 
the  federal  head  of  the  race,  while  he  yet  retained 
his  primal  innocence.  Proof:  "Ajid  on  the  sev- 
enth day  God  ended  his  work  which  he  had 
made ;  and  he  rested  on  the  seventh  day  from 
all  his  work  which  he  had  made.  And  God 
blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  sanctified  it ;  because 
that  in  it  he  had  rested  from  all  his  work  which 
God  created  and  made."     Gen.  2  :  2,  3. 

2.  That,  though  the  history  of  the  period, 
stretchinof  -from  the  creation  to  the  exodus,  is 
extremely  brief,  it  is  manifest,  even  from  that 
period,  that  the  good  of  those  ages  had  not  lost 
sight  of  it ;  since  the  children  of  Israel  were  ac- 
quainted with  its  existence  thirty  days  before 
reaching   Mount   Sinai.      "And    He   said  unto 


72  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

them,  This  is  that  which  the  Lord  hath  said,  To- 
morrow is  the  rest  of  the  holy  Sabbath  unto  the 
Lord ;  bake  that  which  ye  will  bake  to-day,  and 
seethe  that  ye  will  seethe ;  and  that  which  re- 
maineth  over  lay  up  for  you  to  be  kept  until  tlie 
morning."  Ex.  16  :  23.  "  Six  days  ye  shall 
gather  it ;  but  on  the  seventh  day,  which  is  the 
Sabbath,  in  it  there  shall  be  none."     Ex.  16  :  26. 

3.  That  God,  unwilling  to  commit  the  interest 
of  so  important  an  institution  to  the  keeping  of 
tradition,  framed  a  command  for  its  perpetuity, 
which  he  spoke  with  his  own  voice  and  wrote 
with  his  own  finger,  placing  it  in  the  bosom  of 
the  great  moral  law  of  the  ten  precepts :  "  Re- 
member the  Sabbath  day,  to  keep  it  holy.  Six 
days  shalt  thou  labor,  and  do  all  thy  work ;  but 
the  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy 
God :  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  v/ork,  thou,  nor 
thy  son,  nor  thy  daughter,  thy  man-servant,  nor 
thy  maid-servant,  nor  thy  cattle,  nor  thy  stranger 
that  is  within  thy  gates^:  for  in  six  days  the  Lord 
made  heaven  a.nd  earth,  the  sea,  and  all  that  in 
them  is,  and  rested  the  seventh  day  ;  wherefore 
the  Lord  blessed  the  Sabbath  day,  and  hallowed 
it."     Ex.  20  :  8-11. 

4.  That  this  law  has  been  brought  over  into 
our  dispensation,  and  every  jot  and  tittle  of  it  is 
binding  now,  and  Avill  continue  to  be,  so  long  as 
the  world  stands.  "  Think  not  that  I  am  come 
to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets ;  I  am  not 
come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill.     For  verily  I  say 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SAEBATH.  to 

unto  you,  Till  heaven  a.nd  earth  pass,  one  jot  or 
one  tittle  shall  in  no  v/ise  pass  from  the  law,  till 
all  be  fulfilled.  Whosoever,  therefore,  shall  break 
one  of  these  least  commandments,  and  shall  teach 
men  so,  he  sliall  be  called  the  least  in  the  king- 
dom of  Heaven ;  but  whosoever  shall  do  and 
teach  them,  the  same  shall  be  called  great  in  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven." — Jesus,  Matt.  5  :  17-19. 
"  Do  we  then  make  void  the  law  through  faith  ? 
God  forbid ;  yea,  we  establish  the  law." — Paul, 
Romans  3:31.  "  Wherefore  the  law  is  holy,  and 
the  commandment  holy,  and  just,  and  good." 
Romans  7:12.  "If  ye  fulfill  the  royal  law  ac- 
cording to  the  scripture.  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself,  ye  do  well ;  but  if  ye  have 
respect  to  persons,  ye  commit  sin,  and  are  con- 
vinced of  the  law  as  transgressors.  For  v/hoso- 
ever  shall  keep  the  whole  lav>^,  and  yet  ofiend  in 
one  point,  he  is  guilty  of  all.  For  he  that  said, 
Do  not  commit  adultery,  said  also.  Do  not  kill. 
Now  if  thou  commit  no  adultery,  yet  if  thou  kill, 
thou  art  become  a  transgressor  of  the  law." — 
James,  Jas.  2  :  8-11.  "Whosoever  com^mitteth 
sin  transgresseth  also  the  law ;  for  sin  is  the 
transgression  of  the  law.  And  ye  know  that  he 
was  manifested  to  take  away  our  sins ;  and  in 
him  is  no  sin.  Whosoever  abideth  in  him  sin- 
neth  not ;  whosoever  sinneth  hath  not  seen  him, 
neither  knoAvn  him." — John,  1  John  3  :  4-6. 

5.   That,  agreeably   to   this   view,  Christ — of 
whom  it  is  said,  "  Thy  law  is  ^vithin  my  heart " 


74  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

— was  a  habitual  observer,  during  his  lifetime,  of 
the  Sabbath  of  the  decalogue.  "  And  he  came  to 
Nazareth,  where  he  had  been  brought  up ;  and, 
as  his  custom  was,  he  went  into  the  synagogue 
on  the  Sabbatli  day,  and  stood  up  for  to  read." 
Luke  4:16.  "If  ye  keep  my  commandments,  ye 
shall  abide  in  my  love ;  even  as  I  have  kept  my 
Father's  commandments,  and  abide  in  his  love." 
John  15: 10. 

6.  That  the  women,  whose  religious  concep- 
tions had  been  formed  under  his  teachings,  care- 
fully regarded  it.  "And  they  returned,  and 
prepared  spices  and  ointments ;  and  rested  the 
Sabbath  day,  according  to  the  commandment." 
Luke  23 :  56. 

7.  The  Lord  instructed  his  disciples  that  it 
would  exist  at  least  forty  years  after  his  death, 
since  he  taught  them  to  pray  continually  that 
their  flight,  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
whicli  occurred  A.  D.  70,  might  not  take  place  on 
that  day.  "  But  pray  ye  that  your  flight  be  not 
in  the  winter,  neither  on  the  Sabbath  day." 
Matt.  24 :  20. 

8.  That  the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  was 
in  the  habit  of  making  it  a  day  of  public  teach- 
ing. "  And  Paul,  as  his  manner  ivas,  went  in 
unto  them,  and  three  Sabbath  days  reasoned  with 
them  out  of  the  Scriptures."  Acts  27  : 2.  "  And 
he  reasoned  in  the  synagogue  every  Sabbath,  and 
persuaded  the  Jews  and  the  Greeks."     Acts  18:4. 

9.  That,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  95,  John  still 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  75 

recognized  its  existence.  "I  was  in  the  Spirit 
on  the  Lord's  day,  and  heard  behind  me  a  great 
voice,  as  of  a  trumpet."     Rev.  1:10. 

10.  That  God  has  never  removed  the  blessing 
which  he  placed  npon  it  in  the  beginning,  or 
annulled  the  sanctification  by  which  it  was  at 
that  time  set  apart  to  a  holy  use. 

11.  That,  in  perfect  keeping  with  the  above 
propositions,  it  is,  equally  in  the  New  with  the 
Old  Testament,  scores  of  times  denominated  the 
Sabbath ;  and  that,  while  God,  and  Christ,  and 
prophets,  and  apostles,  and  inspired  men,  unite 
in  applying  to  it  this  sacred  title,  they  never,  in 
any  single  instance,  allow  themselves  to  speak  of 
any  other  day  in  the  week  in  the  use  of  this  pe- 
culiar appellation. 

12.  That  it  is  not  only  to  continue  during  the 
present  order  of  things,  but  that,  in  the  new 
earth,  clothed  in  all  the  freshness  and  beauty  of 
its  Edenic  glory,  creation,  more  than  ever  be- 
fore, will  be  the  subject  of  devout  gratitude,  and 
weekly  commemoration  on  the  part  of  the  im- 
mortal and  sinless  beings  who  shall  worship  God 
therein  forever.  "  For  as  the  new  heavens  and 
the  new  earth,  which  I  will  make  shall  remain 
before  me,  saith  the  Lord,  so  shall  your  seed  and 
your  name  remain.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass, 
that  from  one  new  moon  to  another,  and  from 
one  Sabbath  to  another,  shall  all  flesh  come  to 
worship  before  me,  saith  the  Lord."  Lsa.  6Q  : 
22,  23. 


76  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

Piittinoc  all  tliesG  facts  tog^etlier — connected, 
consistent,  and  unanswerable  as  tliey  are — men 
will  discover  tliat  a  great  departure  lias  taken 
place  from  the  original  practice  of  the  church,  and 
against  the  explicit  command  of  God.  Should 
they  ask,  as  assuredly  they  will,  Avhen,  and  by 
whom,  it  was  inaugurated,  it  will  not  be  a  fruit- 
less effort  on  their  part  to  obtain  needed  inform- 
ation. God  has  made  ample  provision  for  the 
instruction  of  those  who  would  do  his  will,  and 
for  the  condemnation  of  those  who  refuse  so  to 
do.  Referring  to  prophecies  given  centuries  ago, 
mapping  out  beforehand  the  history  of  the  world, 
they  will  find  the  prophet  Daniel — while  describ- 
inor  the  work  of  the  "little  horn,"  which  arose 
amoiig  the  ten  horns  of  the  great  and  terrible 
beast,  and  which  little  horn  nearly  all  Protestant 
commentators  agree  in  applying  to  the  papal 
church — stating  of  it,  by  way  of  prediction,  that 
it  should  "  wear  out  the  saints  of  the  Most  High, 
and  think  to  change  times  and  laws,"  and  that 
they  should  "  be  given  into  his  hand  until  a  time 
and  times  8.nd  the  dividing  of  time."  (Dan.  7  : 
25.)  Consulting  history,  they  will  discover  that, 
so  far  as  the  saints  are  concerned,  these  terrible 
words  have  been  so  completely  fulfilled  that  this 
power  has  actually  put  to  death,  in  one  way  or 
other,  at  least  fifty  millions  of  the  people  of  God. 

Again,  perceiving,  as  they  will  readily,  that  the 
"  laws,"  which  this  presumptuous  power  should 
blasphemouoly  claim   to  be  able  to  change,  are 


SUNDAY    AND   THE    SABEATII.  77 

the  laws  of  God,  what  will  be  then*  astonishment 
at  learning,  from  the  representatives  of  this  great 
oppressive  system — which  alone  has  extended 
through  a  period  sufficiently  long  to  cover  the 
"time,  times  and  half  a  time,"  or  the  1260 
years  of  Daniel's  prophecy — that  it  actually 
boasts  that  it  has  done  the  very  work  in  ques- 
tion. Nay,  more  ;  what  limit  can  be  put  to  their 
surprise  when  they  find  these  men  absolutely 
pointing  with  exultation  to  the  practice  of  the 
Christian  world  in  the  observance  of  Sunday,  as 
an  evidence  of  the  ability  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
church  to  alter  and  amend  the  commands  of  God ! 
That  they  do  this,  however,  in  the  most  unequiv- 
ocal terms,  will  be  abundantly  proved  by  the 
following  quotations  from  their  own  publica- 
tions : — 

"  Question.  Is  it  then  Saturday  we  should 
sanctify,  in  order  to  obey  the  ordinance  of  God  ? 
Ans.  During  the  old  law,  Saturday  was  the  day 
sanctified;  but  the  cJiiirch,  instructed  by  Jesus 
Christ,  and  directed  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  has 
substituted  Sunday  for  Saturday;  so  we  now 
sanctify  the  first,  not  the  seventh,  day.  Sundp.y 
means,  and  now  is,  the  day  of  the  Lord.  Ques. 
Had  the  church  power  to  make  such  a  change  ? 
Ans.  Certa-inly ;  since  the  Spirit  of  God  is  her 
guide,  the  change  is  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 
— Oath.  Catechism  of  Christian  Religion. 

"  Ques.  Hov,^  prove  you  that  the  church  has 
power  to  coiiimand  feasts  and  holy  days?     Ans. 


78  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

By  the  very  act  of  changing  the  Sabbath  into 
Sunday,  which  Protestants  allow  of;  and  there- 
fore they  fondly  contradict  themselves  by  keep- 
ing Sunday  strictly,  and  breaking  most  other 
feasts  commanded  by  the  same  church. 

"  QuGs.  How  prove  you  that  ?  Ans.  Because, 
by  keeping  Sunday,  they  acknowledge  the  church's 
power  to  ordain  feasts,  and  to  command  them  un- 
der sin ;  and  by  not  keeping  the  rest  by  her  com- 
manded,  they  again  deny,  in  fact,  the  same  power^ 
— Abridgment  of  Christian  Doctrine. 

"  It  is  worth  its  while  to  remember  that  this 
observance  of  the  Sabbath — in  which,  after  all, 
the  only  Protestant  worship  consists — not  only 
has  no  foundation  in  the  Bible,  but  it  is  in  fla- 
grant contradiction  with  its  letter,  which  com- 
mands rest  on  the  Sabbath,  which  is  Saturday. 
It  was  the  Catholic  church  which,  by  the  author- 
ity of  Jesus  Christ,  has  transferred  this  rest  to 
the  Sunday  in  remembrance  of  the  resurrection 
of  our  Lord.  Thus  the  observance  of  Sunday  by 
the  Protestants  is  an  homage  they  pay,  in  spite 
of  themselves,  to  the  authority  of  the  church." — 
Plain  Talk  about  Protestantism  of  To-day,]}.  225. 

Instinctively  anticipating  some  providential 
mode  of  escape  from  the  terrible  consequences  of 
that  great  apostasy,  out  of  which  the  religious 
world  has  for  centuries  been  endeavoring  to  work 
its  way,  conscientious  men  and  women  will  catch 
the  notes  of  warning  which  for  twenty-five  years 
have  been  soundino:  throus^h  the  land,  in  these 

O  CD  •' 


SUNDAY    AND   TUE   SABBATH.  t  \) 

words :  "  Here  is  the  patience  of  the  saints :  here 
are  they  that  keep  the  commandments  of  God, 
and  the  faith  of  Jesus."     Kev.  14  :  12. 

Inquiring  into  the  origin  of  the  message  which 
is  thus  being  given  to  the  world,  they  will  find 
that,  for  a  quarter  of  a  century,  God  has  been  call- 
ing attention  to  the  subject  of  his  law  and  his  Sab- 
bath, and  that  a  denomination  of  earnest  men  and 
women,  but  little  known  as  yet  among  the  learned 
and  mighty  of  the  land,  have  been  devoting  them- 
selves with  zeal  and  a  spirit  of  self-saciifice  to 
the  tremendous  task  of  restoring  God's  down- 
trodden Sabbath  to  the  hearts  and  judgments  of 
the  people.  They  will  find,  also,  that  these  per- 
sons have  not  entered  upon  this  labor  because 
they  anticipated  an  easy  and  speedy  victory ;  nor, 
indeed,  because  they  ever  believed  that  the  great 
mass  of  mankind  would  so  far  shake  off  the  tram- 
mels of  tradition  and  the  fear  of  reproach  as  to 
be  able  to  venture  an  unreserved  surrender  to 
the  teachings  of  the  Bible ;  but  simply  because 
they  saw  in  it  that  which  was  at  once  the  path 
of  duty,  and  that  of  fulfilling  prophecy. 

Having  accepted  Dan.  7 :  25,  in  common  with 
the  religious  world,  as  applying  to  the  papacy, 
and  learning,  as  the  result  of  investigation,  that 
the  days  of  the  great  persecution  were  to  reach 
from  the  decree  of  Justinian  (a.  d.  538,)  giving 
authority  to  the  Bishop  of  Home  to  become  the 
corrector  of  heretics,  to  A.  D.  1708 — when  the 
pope  was  carried  into  captivity,  having  received 


80  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

a  wonncl  with  tlie  sword  agreeably  to  Rev.  13:10 
— these  students  of  God's  word  at  once  perceived 
that  the  next  thing  in  order  would  be  the  com- 
pletion of  the  restitution,  which  had  begun  in  the 
taking  away  of  his  ability  to  put  the  saints  to 
death,  by  a  work  equally  called  for  in  the  in- 
spired prediction ;  namely,  that  of  rescuing  from 
his  hands  the  "times  and  laws"  which  he  thought 
to  change.  Or,  in  other  words,  tlia,t  the  effort  of 
the  pope  to  remove  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  from 
the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week  should 
be  made  to  appear  in  its  true  light ;  namely,  as 
the  work  of  a  blasphemous  power  which  had  held 
the  world  in  its  grasp  for  centuries. 

But,  while  they  were  clear  in  those  convictions 
which  led  them  in  184!6,  under  the  title  of  Sev- 
enth-day Adventists,  to  claim  that  they  were  ful- 
filling the  prophecy  of  Ilev.  14 :  9-12,  they  dis- 
cerned that  the  same  facts  which  brought  them 
to  this  conclusion  also  compelled  the  conviction 
that  theirs  was  to  be  the  road  of  persecution: 
hardship,  and  privation.  They  read  in  Rev.  12  : 
17,  in  these  words,  ''  The  dragon  was  wroth  with 
the  woman,  and  went  to  make  war  with  the  rem- 
nant of  her  seed,  which  keep  the  commandments 
of  God,  and  have  the  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ," 
the  history  of  the  last  generation  of  Christians ; 
and  saw  that,  in  God's  inscrutable  providence,  it 
was  to  be  their  fortune  to  be  the  object  of  dia- 
bolic hate,  because  of  tlie  commandments  of  God 
and  the  testimony  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  which  they 
cling  witii  determined  perseverance. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SAB13ATII.  81 

Once  more  :  In  studying  the  11th  to  the  IcSth 
verses  inclusive  of  the  13th  chapter  of  the  same 
book,  they  saw  that — if  their  view  of  the  work 
which  was  assigned  them  was  correct — that  por- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  was  applied  to  the  United 
States  of  America,  and  indicated  that  this  coun- 
try w^as  to  be  the  theater  of  a  mighty  contest 
between  those  who  "  keep  the  commandments  of 
God  and  the  faith  of  Jesus,"  and  the  government 
under  which  they  live,  from  wdiich  they  could 
only  be  delivered  by  the  coming  of  Christ.  This 
view  they  unhesitatingly  proclaim ed.  For  twenty 
years,  they  have  announced  it  as  a  part  of  their 
faith.  When  they  first  declared  it  to  be  such, 
they  brought  upon  themselves  ridicule  and  con- 
tempt, for,  humanly  speaking,  every  probability 
was  aojainst  them.  The  crovernment  w^as  ostensi- 
bly  republican  in  form,  and  professedly  tolerant 
to  the  very  extreme,  in  all  matters  of  religious 
opinion.  The  Constitution  had  even  provided 
that  "Congress  should  make  no  law  respecting 
an  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the 
free  exercise  thereof." 

Nevertheless,  so  firm  were  they  in  the  convic- 
tion that  they  had  the  right  application  of  the 
prophecy,  that  they  unhesitatingly  walked  out 
upon  their  faith ;  and  for  a  fifth  of  a  century 
they  have  talked  it,  and  published  it  everywhere, 
notwithstanding  the  odium  it  has  brought  upon 
tliein.  Lest  we  might  appear  to  be  drawling  upon 
our  own  imagination  in  a  matter  of  such  import- 


82  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

ance,  we  append  tlie  following  extracts  from  their 
works.  The  words  in  parentheses  are  our  ov/n, 
and  serve  to  explain  tliat  v/hicli  a  larger  quota- 
tion from  the  context  would  make  clear  of  itself: 

"When  the  'beast'  (the  papacy)  had  the  do- 
minion, all  in  authority  must  be  Catholics.  The 
popular  sentiment  then  was  that  none  should 
hold  offices  in  the  government,  except  they  pro- 
fessed the  Catholic  faith.  The  popular  religion 
at  that  peiiod  was  Catholicism,  They  legislated 
upon  religious  subjects,  and  required  ail  men  to 
conform  to  the  popular  institutions  and  dogmas 
of  the  papacy,  or  suffer  and  die.  The  image 
must  be  made  in  the  United  States,  where  Prot- 
estantism is  the  prevailing  religion.  Image  sig- 
nifies likeness ;  therefore  Protestantism  and  Re- 
publicanism will  unite ;  or,  in  other  words,  the 
makinor  of  laws  will  sfo  into  the  hands  of  Prot- 
estants,  when  all  in  authority  will  profess  the 
popular  sentiments  of  the  day,  and  make  laws 
binding  certain  religious  institutions  {i.  e.,  Sun- 
day observance,  &c.),  upon  all,  without  distinc- 
tion."— Advent  Revieiv  and  Sahhath  Hercdd,  Yol. 
6,  No.  6, 1854. 

"  It  seems  to  me,  even  to  look  at  the  subject  in 
the  light  of  reason,  that  a  conflict  must  in  time 
come  between  commandment-keepers  and  the 
United  States.  This,  of  course,  will  lead  those 
who  find  that  they  cannot  sustain  their  Sunday 
institution  by  argument  to  resort  to  some  other 
means." — Advent  Revieiv  and  Herald,  Yol.  10, 
No.  11,  1857. 


SCNDAV    AND    THE    SAUDATH.  83 

"  When  all  concur  upon  this  question  (Sunday- 
keeping),  except  a  few  who  conscientiously  ob- 
serve the  fourth  commandment,  how  long  before 
their  constancy  would  be  attributed  to  obstinacy 
and  bigotry  ?  And  how  long  before  the  sentence 
would  go  forth,  as  it  did  in  the  days  of  Plin}^, 
'  that  for  this,  if  for  nothing  else,  they  deserved 
to  be  punished/" — Revieiv  and  Herald,  Vol.  19, 
No.  15.     («.) 

How  changed  the  political  sky  to-day  from 
what  it  was  when  these  words  began  to  be  spok- 
en !  Now,  thoughtful  men  are  pondering  whether, 
after  all,  these  things  may  not  be  so.  They  see 
a  powerful  organization  looming  up  in  the  coun- 
try, which  appends  to  the  call  for  their  conven- 
tions the  names  of  some  of  the  most  influential 
men  in  the  land.  They  hear  them  declaring  in 
so  many  words,  that  what  they  are  determined 
to  do'is  to  sweep  away  the  constitutional  barrier 
between  them  and  a  coerced  observance  of  Sun- 
day, so  that  all  may  be  compelled  to  regard  it  as 
saci-ed.  AVhat  we  Avant,  say  they,  and  what  we 
are  determined  to  have,  is  such  an  amendment  of 
the  Constitution,  1.  That  it  shall  recognize  God 
and  Christ ;  2.  That  it  shall  enable  us  to  secure 
the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  the  common  schools ; 
3.  That  we  may  be  enabled  to  enforce  the  better 
observance  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  i.  e.,  Sunday. 

(a)  For  further  information  upon  this  subject,  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred to  "  The  Three  Angels'  Messages  "  and  the  "  United  States 
in  Prophecy,"  published  at  the  Jievieiv  and  Herald  Office,  Battle 
Creek,  Mich. 


84  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

These  declarations,  a  few  years  since,  would 
have  appalled  every  lover  of  constitutional  lib- 
erty. Every  rnan  and  woman  imbued  with  a 
proper  sense  of  the  genius  of  our  institutions 
would  have  been  struck  with  horror  at  the  very 
thought  of  pursuing  the  course  in  question.  But 
a  change  has  come  over  the  spirit  of  the  land. 
Steadily,  the  advocates  of  a  day  which  has  no 
authority  in  the  word  of  God  are  drifting  where 
all  before  them  have  done  who  have  sought  to 
maintain  a  human  institution  upon  the  claim  of 
divine  authority.  It  is  idle  for  them  to  say  at 
this  stage  of  the  proceedings  that  they  propose 
to  regard  the  rights  of  those  who  have  conscien- 
tious scruples  on  this  subject.  God  has  said  that 
the  matter  will  culminate  in  oppression;  nay,  even 
though  this  were  not  so,  reason  itself  vfould  prove 
that  this  Avould  be  the  case.  Without  question- 
ing the  sincerity  of  the  men  who  at  the  present 
make  these  statements,  we  appeal  to  that  very 
sincerity  for  the  evidence  that  this  matter  will 
end  just  where  the  Seventh-day  Adventists  have 
claimed  that  it  would. 

They  have  convinced  themselves  that  they  are 
called  of  God  to  a  mighty  work.  They  believe 
that  they  have  a  noble  mission.  They  are  men 
of  mind  and  nerve.  But,  when  a  few  months 
shall  have  revealed  the  insufficiency  of  their 
logic,  when  Seventh-day  Baptists  and  Seventh- 
day  Adventists  shall  have  confronted  them  with  a 
plain  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  against  their  favor- 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SADHATII.  85 

ite  scheme,  they  would  be  more  than  human  if — 
refusing  to  yield  to  arguments  which  they  cannot 
answer — they  should  continue  to  look  with  com- 
placence upon  the  very  men  who,  after  all,  will 
prove  to  be  their  most  formidable  antagonists  in 
the  great  conflict.  In  fact,  it  would  be  a  denial 
of  both  nature  and  history  to  say  that  they  would 
not  at  last  come  to  regard  them  in  the  light  of 
enemies  of  God,  really  more  worthy  of  condem- 
nation and  coercion  than  those  who  were  simply 
unbelievers  in  any  Sabbath  at  all,  and  so  incapa- 
ble of  standing  before  the  systematic  effort  which 
they  have  set  in  motion,     (h.) 

But,  candid  reader,  the  facts  are  before  you, 
and  between  us  and  these  events  there  will  be 
ample  time  for  calm  reflection,  and  deliberate  de- 
cision. Where  do  you  choose  to  stand  in  this  fi- 
nal conflict  between  the  venerable  Sabbath  of  the 
Lord  and  its  modern  papistic  rival  ?  Will  you 
keep  the  commandments  of  God,  as  uttered  by 
his  voice  and  wiitten  by  his  finger  ?  or  will  you 
henceforth  pay  intelligent  homage  to  the  man  of 
sin,  by  the  observance  of  a  day  which  finds  its 
authority  alone  in  the  mutilated  form  of  the  com- 
mandments, as  they  come  from  his  hand  ?  May 
God  help  you  to  make  a  wise  choice. 

{b)  Persons  desiring  to  investigate  this  question  still  further, 
by  addressing  the  author  of  these  articles,  will  receive  by  mail, 
without  charge,  a  tract  in  which  he  has  discussed  at  length  a 
branch  of  this  subject  merely  alluded  to  in  this  communication. 


EXPLAKATOP.Y  REMARKS, 


Immediately  on  the  publication  of  the  foregoing  arti- 
cles in  the  Christian  Statesman,  the  editor  of  that  paper 
announced  his  purpose  to  review  them  in  the  columns  of 
that  periodical.  This  purpose  he  subsequently  carried 
out  in  the  publication  of  eleven  communications,  in  which 
various  strictures  were  offered  upon  the  positions  taken 
by  me  in  my  original  contributions.  I  immediately  re- 
quested the  j)rivilege  of  replying  to  these  criticisms  in  the 
colimins  of  the  Statesman,  so  that  those  who  had  read  my 
argument  in  the  beginning,  and  the  replies  of  the  editor 
of  the  Statesman  tliereto,  might  have  an  oj^portuiiity  to 
see  the  relative  strength  of  the  positions  occujiied  by  that 
gentleman  and  myself  tested  in  fair  and  open  debate.  My 
petition,  however,  was  denied,  and  I  was  compelled  either 
to  remain  silent  or  seek  elsewhere  for  an  opportunity  to 
make  my  defense.  Fortunately,  at  this  juncture,  the  col- 
umns of  the  Advent  Review,  which  is  the  organ  of  the  Sev- 
enth-day Adventists,  were  freely  offered  me  for  the  irar- 
pose  in  question,  and  in  them  the  Replies  of  the  editor  of 
the  Statesman,  and  my  Rejoinders  thereto^  have  since  been 
published.  To  these  Replies  and  Rejoinders,  as  they  ap- 
peared therein,  the  remainder  of  the  present  volume  is  de- 
voted. To  them,  the  reader  is  earnestly  invited  to  give 
his  most  serious  attention,  since  they  present,  side  by  side, 
the  lines  of  argmnent  usually  employed  for  and  against 
the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord.  w.  h.  l. 


(80) 


REPLIES  AND  REJOINDERS 


Eerily  Of  tiisEililoroniisCMsliaii 


.^s^TicXiE  Oasr: 


SEVEXTH-DAY  SABBATARIANS  AND   THE  CHRISTIAN 
AMENDMENT. 

We  have  given  not  a  little  space  to  the  argu- 
ment against  the  Christian  Amendment  of  our 
National  Constitution  from  the  stand-point  of 
the  advocates  of  the  seventh-day  Sabbath.  This 
argument,  in  brief,  is  this  :  The  proposed  amend- 
ment, in  its  practical  working,  is  intended  to  se- 
cure the  better  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  as  the  civil  Sabbath.  But  the  Bible,  the 
revealed  law  of  God,  it  is  affirmed,  contains  no 
warrant  either  for  individual  or  national  observ- 
ance of  the  first  day  of  the  week.  The  amend- 
ment, therefore,  it  is  maintained,  should  not  be 
favored,  but  earnestly  opposed,  by  those  who  ac- 
knowledge the  supreme  authority  of  the  law  of 
the  Bible. 

This,  it  will  be  seen  at  a  glance,  is  no  arg-umeut 
against  the  principle  of  the  proposed  amendment. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  bases  itself  on  that  very 
principle,  viz.,  that  it  is  the  bounden  duty  of  the 
nation  to  acknowledge  the  authority  of  God,  and 
take  his  revealed  word  as  the  supreme  i-ule  of  its 
conduct.  The  argument,  therefore,  instead  of  be- 
ing directed  against  the  amendment  itself,  is  di- 
rected almost  entirely  against  that  interpretation 


88  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

of  the  divine  law  of  the  Seriptures  which  fixes 
the  Christian  Sabbath  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week.  We  consented  to  admit  to  our  cokiinns  a 
short  series  of  brief  articles  presenting  an  argu- 
ment against  the  amendment.  Pressing  the  lines 
of  courtesy  and  fairness  far  beyond  the  limits  of 
our  agreement,  we  have,  in  fact,  admitted  many 
long  articles,  the  burden  of  which  has  been  to 
show  that  there  is  no  warrant  in  the  word  of  God 
for  the  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  as 
the  Sabbath  of  divine  appointment.  We  shall 
expect  equal  generosity  from  the  journals  of  our 
seventh-day  Sabbatarian  friends. 

The  amendment  proposed  is  in  substance  as 
follows :  An  acknowledgment  of  God  as  the  ul- 
timate source  of  all  power  and  authority  in  civil 
government ;  of  Jesus  Christ  as  ruler  of  nations  ; 
and  of  the  Bible  as  the  fountain  of  law,  and  the 
supreme  rule  of  national  conduct.  Let  this  be 
distinctly  borne  in  mind.  We  have  here  a  clear 
assertion  of  the  very  principles  for  which  the  sev- 
enth-day Sabbatarian  most  strenuously  contends. 

Just  here,  we  would  take  occasion  to  say  that 
even  if  the  proposed  amendment  contained  an  ex- 
press acknowledgment,  in  so  many  words,  of  the 
first-day  Sabbath,  and  if  the  argument  for  the 
seventh-day  Sabbath  were  a  perfect  demonstra- 
tion, there  would  still  be,  on  that  account,  as 
matters  actually  stand  in  our  land  at  present,  no 
valid  objection  against  such  explicit  Constitu- 
tional acknowledgment  of  the  first  day. 

Suppose  a  company  of  the  advocates  of  the 
seventh -day  Sabbath,  going  forth  as  missionaries, 
should  discover,  in  a  distant  sea,  an  island  inhab- 
ited by  a  people  in  many  respects  highly  civil- 
ized, possessing  a  portion  of  the  Bible,  and  ob- 


SUNDAY    AST)    THE    SABDATII.  89 

serving  one  day  in  seven,  say  the  fourth  day  of 
the  week,  as  a  day  of  rest  and  worship  of  the 
true  God,  and  acknowledging  it  as  such  in  their 
Constitution  of  government.  Suppose  that  in 
the  same  island  should  be  found  a  large  and  act- 
ive minority,  thoroughly  infidel  and  atheistic, 
striving  in  every  way  to  overturn  the  Sabbath, 
The  missionaries,  perceiving  much  room  and  op- 
portunity for  doing  good  to  the  people,  settle 
among  them,  and  seek,  among  many  things,  to 
change  the  Sabbath  to  what  they  regard  as  the 
proper  day.  In  what  way  would  they  attempt 
to  accomplish  this  ?  Would  they  permit  them- 
selves for  a  moment  to  be  classed  with  the  infidel 
and  atheistic  opponents  of  the  Sabbath  ?  Would 
they  not  stand  side  by  side  with  those  who  de- 
fended the  Sabbath  observances  of  the  country 
against  the  attacks  of  immoral  and  unbelieving 
enemies  of  all  Christian  institutions  ? 

If  these  missionaries  were  advocates  of  the 
first-day  Sabbath,  and  we  were  of  the  number, 
for  our  part,  this  is  what  we  would  do :  We 
would  practice  for  ourselves  the  observance  of 
what  we  are  persuaded  is  the  Christian  Sabbath. 
We  would  multiply  and  scatter  abroad  copies  of 
the  entire  Bible,  and  seek  to  convince  the  people 
and  the  nation  that  God's  law  requires  the  ob- 
servance of  the  first  day.  In  the  meantime,  con- 
fident that,  by  the  blessing  of  the  Head  of  the 
church,  the  circulation  of  the  divine  word  and 
the  proclamation  of  its  truths  would  at  length 
change  the  conviction  of  the  islanders,  we  should 
say  to  them :  "  Do  not  cease  to  observe  a  day  of 
rest  and  worship.  To  have  one  such  a  day  in 
every  seven  is  right.  Do  not  blot  out  its  ac- 
knowledgment from  the  Constitution.     You  need 


90  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

its  legal  safe-guards.  True,  there  is  no  divine 
warrant  for  the  observance  of  the  fourth  day  of 
the  week  instead  of  the  first.  But  a  fourth-day 
Sabbath  is  better  than  no  Sabbath  at  all.  We 
will  help  you  to  preserve  from  the  assaults  of  our 
common  enemies  the  observances  of  the  Sabbath, 
that  you  may  have  them  to  transfer,  as  we  urge 
you  to  do,  to  the  first  day  of  the  week."  Would 
the  advocates  of  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  do 
otherwise,  except  in  substituting  the  seventh  day 
for  the  first  ?  And  now  let  us  take  the  actual, 
corresponding  case  in  our  own  land.  The  great 
mass  of  Christians  here,  as  elsewhere,  regard  the 
first  day  of  the  week  as  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord. 
Admit,  for  the  sake  of  the  illustration,  that  they 
have  no  better  ground  for  their  opinion  than  the 
islanders  mentioned  above.  Is  it  not  right  for 
them  to  have  a  day  of  rest  and  worship  ?  Is  it 
not  right  for  them  to  observe  one  such  a  day  in 
seven  ?  Is  it  maintained  that,  because  the  day 
is  not  the  proper  one,  there  is  and  can  be  nothing 
right  about  these  Sabbath  observances  ?  Then, 
if  all  is  wrong,  it  must  be  better  to  have  no  Sab- 
bath at  all,  and  utterly  secularize  the  week.  This, 
our  seventh-day  friends  cannot  and  will  not  ad- 
mit. They  gladly  testify  that  our  first-day  Sab- 
bath, poorly  as  it  may  be  observed,  is  infinitely 
to  be  preferred  to  the  unbroken  current  of  the 
worldliness  of  the  week.  A  Sabbathless  w^eek; 
successive  rounds  of  equally  secularized  days, 
marked,  if  marked  at  all,  by  the  recurrence  of 
unusual  worldly  gayety  and  dissipation ;  this  is 
what  infidelity  and  atheism  would  give  us  for 
the  existing  Sabbath.  Do  the  friends  of  the  sev- 
enth-day Sabbath  desire  any  such  substitution  ? 
Their  argument  against  the  proposed  amendment 


SUNDAY    A2;D    THE    SABUATII.  Dl 

on  the  ground  that  it  expressly  or  impliedly  con- 
tains an  acknowledgment  of  the  first-day  Sab- 
bath, is,  that  it  will  enforce  existing  Sabbath 
laws,  and  strengthen  first-day  Sabbath  observ- 
ances. But  is  it  not  better  to  do  this  than 
accept  the  dread  alternative  ?  Even  from  this 
point  of  view,  then,  we  claim  for  the  proposed 
amendment,  what  in  some  cases  it  has  actually, 
and,  we  believe,  most  consistently; received, the  ap- 
proval and  support  of  seventh-da.y  Sabbatarians. 
But  we  return  to  the  form  of  the  proposed 
amendment.  It  expresses,  as  it  should,  only  the 
most  fundamental  principles.  It  asserts  the  duty 
of  the  na,tion  to  acknowledge  God  in  Christian 
relations.  It  recognizes  the  Bible  as  the  fountain 
of  the  nation's  law^s,  and  the  supremo  rule  of  its 
conduct.  Now,  if  we  were  among  either  the  first- 
day  or  the  seventh-day  missionaries,  in  the  case 
of  the  islanders  already  referred  to,  such  a  na- 
tional acknowledgment  of  the  authority  of  the 
Bible  is  just  exactly  what  we  would  desire.  If 
the  islanders  had  this  principle,  as  has  been  sup- 
posed, incorporated  into  their  written  Constitu- 
tion, we  could  ask  for  nothing  more  advantageous 
for  our  missionary  work.  If  they  had  it  not,  and 
certain  citizens  v/ere  laboring  to  secure  its  inser- 
tion by  an  amendment  of  the  instrument,  w^e 
vfould  most  assuredly  accord  these  laborers  our 
heartiest  encouragement  and  support.  We  should 
suspect  ourselves  of  prejudice,  or  rather  of  a  de- 
ficiency in  good  common  sense,  if  we  found  our- 
selves inclined  to  pursue  an  opposite  course.  Be- 
lieving that  God^s  law  requires  the  observance  of 
another  day  than  the  fourth,  how  could  we  rea- 
sona])ly  do  anything  else  than  co-operate  and  re- 
joice in  the  work  of  leading  such  a  people  to  ac- 
knowledge   the  supreme  authoiity  of  that  law 


92  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

and  to  register  their  purpose  in  the  fundamental 
instrument  of  their  government,  to  adjust  all  na- 
tional affairs  according  to  its  requirements  ? 

And  now,  what  can  be  said  of  our  seventh-day 
Sabbatarian  brethren  ?  Are  they  not  inconsist- 
ent ?  They  proclaim  the  duty  of  the  nation  to 
acknowledge  "  the  highest  of  all  laws."  So  far, 
we  are  agreed.  They  maintain  that  the  Bible  is 
that  law.  Here,  too,  we  are  at  one.  And  yet 
they — not  all  of  them,  we  are  happy  to  state — 
oppose  a  movement  which  aims  to  secure  in  the 
organic  law  and  life  of  the  nation  a  sincere,  rev- 
erent, and  obedient  acknowledgment  of  the  au- 
thority of  the  Bible — an  acknowledgment  which 
forecloses  discussion  on  no  question  on  which 
Christians  or  others  may  differ,  but  which  brings 
the  final  appeal  in  all  national  controversies  to 
the  tribunal  of  the  unerring  word  of  God. 

The  inconsistency  of  this  attitude  of  opposi- 
tion to  the  Christian  Amendment  cannot  but  cre- 
ate unfavorable  presumptions  in  regard  to  the 
soundness  of  judgment  of  any  who  may  occupy 
it.  An  attack  from  so  weak  a  point,  upon  the 
Constitutional  acknowledgment  of  the  Christian 
Scriptures,  it  will  be  generally  felt,  does  not  be- 
token a  very  formidable  assault  upon  the  Sabbath 
of  the  Christian  church.  And  yet,  notwithstand- 
ing this,  to  our  mind,  exceedingly  unfortunate 
connection,  we  would  bear  cheerful  testimony  to 
the  fact  that  the  articles  we  h?tve  inserted,  so  far 
as  they  are  an  argument  against  the  first-day 
Sabbath,  and  this  is  manifestly  the  point  v/hich 
the  writer  had  principally  in  view,  contain  a  clear, 
calm,  courteous,  and  attractively  written  presen- 
tation of  one  side  of  a  very  important  subject. 
We  shall  present  the  other  side  of  the  question 
in  succeeding  issues  of  this  journal. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATIf.  93 

REJOINDER,  BY  W.  H.  LITTLEJOHN. 


"SEVENTH-DAY  SABBATARIANS  AND  THE  CHRISTIAN 
AMENDMENT." 

We  have  debated  for  some  time  in  our  oAvn 
mind  the  propriety  of  attempting  an  answer  to 
the  strictures,  if  such  they  may  be  called,  upon 
our  articles  on  the  Constitutional  Amendment. 
Having  decided,  however,  that  they  contain  a 
show  of  loo^ic  which  misjht  deceive  the  careless 
reader,  we  have  at  last  determined  to  give  them  a 
notice  commensurate  with  the  importance  they  as- 
sume, if  not  from  their  intrinsic  merit,  at  least  from 
the  distinguished  source  whence  they  emanate. 

Before  doing  this,  we  take  pleasure  in  acknowl- 
edging the  generosity  of  their  author  in  allowing 
us  to  discuss  in  the  columns  of  his  paper  the 
subject  from  a  stand-point  of  a  nature  calculated 
to  dampen  rather  than  stimulate  the  ardor  of  his 
readers  in  the  work  in  which,  with  him,  they  are 
enoraged.  From  the  outset,  we  have  discovered  no 
disposition  to  take  any  advantage  by  which  the 
full  effect  of  what  v/e  had  to  say  might  in  any 
way  be  lessened.  On  the  contrary,  attention  has 
several  times  been  called  to  our  communications, 
as  being  worthy  of  perusal  by  all. 

Having  said  thus  much  in  reference  to  the 
treatment  we  received  at  the  hands  of  the  editor 
of  the  Statesman  up  to  the  time  of  the  completion 
of  the  publication  of  our  articles,  we  shall  be  par- 
doned for  expressing  our  surprise  at  finding  our- 


94  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

selves,  in  his  first  reply,  standing  somewhat  in 
the  attitude  of  one  who  ha,d  taken  advantage  of 
indulgence  shown  him  to  present  a  line  of  argu- 
ment different  from  that  proposed  at  the  beginning. 
It  is  possible  that  we  have  mistaken  the  design 
of  the  statements  to  which  we  allude.  This  we 
hope  may  prove  to  be  the  case ;  for,  so  far  as  we 
are  concerned,  individually,  we  have  covered  the 
precise  ground  which  we  designed  to  at  the  first. 
If  the  editor  of  the  Statesman  has  found  himself 
disappointed,  either  in  tlie  nature  or  the  length 
of  the  argument,  he  is  to  blame,  and  not  we. 

1.  Because,  so  far  as  the  matter  of  length  is 
concerned,  we  stated  to  him  that  we  should  leave 
that  entirely  "  v/ith  his  magna^nimity,  convinced 
that  he  would  not  cut  us  short  in  our  work  so 
long  as  what  we  had  to  say  was  pointed,  gentle- 
manly, and  of  such  a  nature  as  to  bear  forcibly 
upon  the  question  at  issue  between  us." 

2.  As  it  regards  the  scope  of  the  articles,  we 
stated,  unqualifiedly,  that  we  should  treat  the 
subject  from  the  stand-point  of  an  observer  of 
the  seventh  day,  appealing  to  the  Bible  for  our 
authority.  Nor  were  we  content  with  declaring 
our  plan  of  opposition  by  letter,  but  we  went  so 
far  as  to  give,  in  the  caption  of  our  articles  them- 
selves, an  outline  of  the  order  in  which  we  should 
treat  the  subject.  It  was  as  follows  :  "The  Con- 
stitutional Amendment ;  or,  the  Sunday,  the  Sab- 
bath, the  Change,  and  the  Restitution."  In  it,  as 
will  be  observed,  is  exactly  set  forth  the  manner 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SABBATH.  95 

in  which  we  discussed  the  propriety  of  the  amend- 
ment ;  (1)  Showing  the  emptiness  of  the  claims 
of  the  Sunday.  (2)  The  force  and  obhgation  of 
those  of  the  seventh  day.  (3)  The  manner  in 
which  the  change  of  days  occurred,  and  (4)  The 
work  which  God  has  inaugurated  for  the  purpose 
of  bringing  about  the  Restitution. 

Thus  much  by  way  of  personal  acknowledg- 
ment and  explanation. 

We  turn  now  to  the  criticism  proper  upon  our 
argument. 

First,  there  is  an  attempt  to  state  the  positions 
which  we  assumed  to  prove. 

In  reply,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  it  is  defi- 
cient in  one  very  important  particular.  That 
particular  relates  to  our  proposition  that  God 
himself  has  inaugurated  a  movement  entirely 
outside  of,  and  opposed  to,  the  Constitutional 
Amendment  party,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing 
about  a  Sabbath  reform  in  his  own  wa}-.  For 
proof  of  this,  we  appeal  to  our  last  article  in  full. 
It  is,  to  say  the  least,  not  a  little  remarkable  that 
the  editor  of  the  Statesviaii  should  have  over- 
looked this  point  in  our  communications,  since  a 
perception  of  it  would  ha;ve  saved  him  the  perpe- 
tration of  the  great  mistake  which  he  has  made, 
as  we  shall  see  hereafter. 

Secondly,  It  is  intimated  that  the  proposed 
amendment  is  not  necessarily  connected  with  the 
Sabbath  question ;  and  that,  therefore,  observers 
of  the  seventh  day  should  unite  with  those  of  the 


9G  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

first  in  securing  its  passage,  which,  being  clone, 
the  differences  between  them  could  be  settled  at 
leisure. 

Now  we  confess  to  not  a  little  surprise  that 
such  a  position  should  be  taken  by  a  gentleman 
of  so  much  candor  and  penetration  as  the  editor 
of  the  Statesman.  Have  we  then  been  deceived 
up  to  this  point  ?  Is  it  true  that  Sunday  observ- 
ance has  not  heretofore  been  represented  as  some- 
thing of  vital  importance  to  the  nation,  to  be  se- 
cured, and  only  secured,  by  the  alteration  of  the 
Constitution  as  proposed  ?  Have  these  gentle- 
men not  been  really  in  earnest  when  they  have 
appealed  to  the  strong  love  of  the  people  for  the 
strict  ol^servance  of  what  they  have  been  pleased 
to  call  the  Sabbath,  in  their  endeavors  to  arouse 
them  to  the  significance  of  their  movement  ?  If 
they  have  not,  then  they  are  unworthy  of  public 
confidence,  and  should  henceforth  be  cast  down 
from  the  leadership  of  a  great  party,  which 
boasts,  not  only  its  moralit}^  but  also  its  Chris- 
tianity. 

Let  us  see,  then,  whether  the  amendment, 
which  is  now  in  their  hands,  is,  or  is  not,  by  their 
own  confession,  to  be  employed  in  the  interest  of 
Sunday  observance. 

That  the  Christian  Statesman  is  a  fair  expo- 
nent of  the  opinions  and  intentions  of  the  leading 
spirits  in  the  movement  for  the  amendment,  we 
think  no  one  will  have  the  hardihood  to  deny. 
What   it  advocates  and  favors,  then,  is  destined 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  U< 

to  stand  or  fall  with  the  triumph  or  defeat  of  the 
men  who  speak  through  it.  Turning  to  the 
prospectus  of  the  identical  copy  of  the  Statesman 
wdiich  contains  the  criticism  which  we  are  re- 
viewinor  we  find  the  foUowin^r  statement :  "  The 
design  of  this  paper,  as  its  name  suggests,  is  the 
discussion  of  the  principles  of  civil  government 
in  the  light  of  Christianity.  It  has  been  es- 
tablished to  advocate  the  proposed  Religious 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  At  the  same  time,  it  will  "aid  in  main- 
taininor  all  existini^  Christian  features  in  our  civil 
institutions,  in  particular,  laws  against  the  dese- 
cration of  the  Christian  Sabbath,"  &c. 

We  might  pause  here,  but,  in  a  matter  of  this 
importance,  let  us  make  certainty  doubly  certain. 

It  was  st'ixcnge  that  the  writer  should  have 
made  the  assertion  which  he  did,  with  the  pros- 
pectus from  which  we  have  quoted  before  him. 
It  i^  passing  strange  that — as  if  guided  by  a  Prov- 
idence which  had  doomed  him  to  make  a  complete 
exposure  of  his  real  sentiments,  although  in  so 
doing  his  own  consistency  should  be  involved — 
he  should,  within  two  weeks  from  the  penning 
of  the  above  assertion,  go  back  upon  the  files  of 
his  periodical  for  two  years,  and  reprint,  by  way 
of  emphasis,  according  to  his  own  statement,  the 
following  editorial,  which  forever  settles  the 
point  that  he  believes  and  knows  that  the 
amendment  and  Sunday-keeping  are  destined  to 


98  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

be  joined  together  in  a  common  victory.  As  the 
reader  peruses  this  editorial,  let  him  bear  in  mind 
the  fact  that  it  is  not  the  effusion  of  an  excited 
and  exasperated  man,  but  the  expression  of  a  deep 
and  settled  conviction  which  has  once  found  ut- 
terance, and  which  so  perfectly  expresses  the  real 
sentiments  of  its  author  that,  after  years  of  de- 
liberate reflection,  he  felt  the  truth  of  what  he 
had  said  so  forcibly  that  he  was  constrained  to 
give  it  fresh  utterance.  Let  him  also  note  the 
fact  that  the  italics  are  not  our  ov*m,  but  those  of 
the  editor.  We  regret  that  we  have  not  space  to 
give  it  in  full,  and  invite  those  who  can  do  so,  by 
all  means  to  turn  to  the  copy  of  the  Statesman 
which  contains  it,  and  read  it  for  themselves. 

"  Time  for  the  meeting  of  Congress,  *  *  * 
Two  years  ago  we  printed  the  following  telegram, 
dated  at  Washington,  on  Sabbath,  Dec.  4,  and 
commented  on  it  in  the  following  terms,  which 
we  now  emphatically  repeat :  '  The  trains  yester- 
day and  to-day  brought  large  accessions  to  the 
number  of  Congressmen  and  visitors  already  here, 
and  by  to-morrow  miorning  it  is  expected  that 
nearly  every  Senator  and  member  will  have  ar- 
rived.' Thus  the  fact  is  heralded  over  the  whole 
country  that  a  large  number  of  the  members  of 
the  National  Congress  openly  and  wantonly  in- 
dulge in  common  travel  on  the  Sabbath.  *  * 
*  *  And  there  are  other  reflections  suggested 
by  their  Goridiict. 

"  1.  Not  one  of  ikfM  Tilf^^'^  "^^^J^o  thus  violated 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  99 

the  Sahhath  is  fit  to  hold  any  official  ]Josition  in 
a  Christian  nation.  *  *  *  The  interests  of 
a  nation  can  never  be  safe  in  tlie  hands  of  Sab- 
bath-breakers, and  every  one  of  these  CongTess- 
men  has  done  that  for  which,  if  our  laws  were 
right,  he  ought  to  be  impeached  and  removed. 

"2.  The  sin  of  these  Congressmen  is  a  na- 
tional sin,  because  the  nation  has  not  said  to 
them  in  the  Constitution,  the  supreme  rule  for 
our  public  servants,  '  We  charge  you  to  serve  us 
in  accordance  with  the  higher  law  of  God.'  These 
Sabbath-breaking  railroads,  moreover,  are  corpo- 
rations created  by  the  State,  and  amenable  to  it. 
The  State  is  responsible  to  God  for  the  conduct 
of  these  creatures  which  it  calls  into  being.  It 
is  bound,  therefore,  to  restrain  them  from  this,  as 
from  other  crimes ;  and  any  violation  of  the  Sab- 
bath, by  any  corporation,  should  work  immediate 
forfeiture  of  its  charter.  And  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  with  which  all  State  legis- 
lation is  required  to  be  in  harmony,  should  be  of 
such  character  as  to  prevent  any  State  from  tol- 
erating such  infractions  of  fundamental  moral 
law. 

"  3.  Give  us  in  the  National  Constitution  the 
simple  acknowledgment  of  the  law  of  God  as  the 
supreme  law  of  nations,  and  cdl  the  residts  indi- 
cated in  this  note  ^uill  idtimately  be  secured. 
Let  no  one  say  that  the  movement  does  not  con- 
template sufficiently  practical  ends." — Christian 
Statesman,  Vol.  6,  No.  15. 


100  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

Now  let  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  question 
at  issue  is  one  of  practical  heaving,  and  not  of 
mere  technical  distinction.  We  are  not  splitting 
hairs  as  to  what  consistency  luould  demand  un- 
der certain  circumstances ;  but  the  matter  in 
dispute  is,  Is  it  not  in  the  highest  degree  proba- 
ble that  a  party,  represented  by  men  who  express, 
beforehand,  sentiments  like  those  contained  in  the 
above  editorial,  would,  wdien  having  vaulted  into 
the  seat  of  power,  attempt  the  coercion  of  all  into 
a  strict  observance  of  the  Sunday  ?  Is  not  the 
line  of  argument  employed  above  tliat  which 
Av^ould  compel  them  to  this  action,  since  it  is 
there  insisted  that  God  holds  the  nation  and  the 
State  responsible  for  any  dereliction  in  duty  in 
this  direction  ?  Furthermore,  is  it  not  promised, 
in  so  many  words,  that  if  the  amendment  is  car- 
ried, the  end  desired  shall  be  secured  by  statutes 
so  relentless  that  all  oifending  corporations  shall 
have  their  charters  taken  away,  and  by  a  public 
opinion  so  uncompromising  that  no  man  who 
presumes  to  violate  the  Sabbath  law  shall  be 
thought  worthy  of  any  position  of  trust  ? 

Thirdly,  Waiving,  for  the  time  being,  the  point 
that  the  Sunday  and  the  amendment  stand  to- 
gether, it  is  urged  that,  though  they  do,  this 
should  not  prevent  seventh- day  observers  from 
supporting  the  latter,  since  it  is  better  to  submit 
to  Sunday  laws  than  to  have  the  nation  pass  into 
the  hands  of  atheists. 

Before  debating  this  proposition  at  length,  it 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  101 

will  be  well  to  bear  in  inincl  that  what  I  have 
said  in  the  Statesman,  as  well  as  what  I  now 
say,  is  spoken  simply  with  reference  to  one 
occupying  the  position  of  a  Seventh-day  Ad- 
ventist. 

So  far  as  our  Seventh-day  Baptist  friends  are 
concerned,  we  have  no  disposition  to  hold  them 
responsible  for  the  views  which  we,  as  Advent- 
ists,  hold.  But  so  far  as  it  regards  our  relation 
to  this  subject,  it  is  materially  affected  by  these 
considerations.  A  failure  to  discern  this  has  led 
the  gentleman  into  very  absurd  positions.  "When 
he  attempts  to  make  a  Seventh-day  Adventist 
conscience,  he  must  form  it  upon  a  Seventh-day 
Adventist  model.  Before  he  can  do  this,  all  his 
bright  visions  of  a  temporal  millennium  and 
good  days  to  come,  must  vanish  into  thin  air. 
To  say,  as  he  does,  that  common  sense  would 
teach  him  to  pursue  a  certain  line  of  conduct,  is 
one  thing ;  to  say  that,  did  he  occupy  the  position 
which  we  hold,  common  sense  would  teach  him  to 
do  the  same  thing,  is  another,  and  entirely  dif- 
ferent, thing.  Let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  therefore, 
that  we  are  not  now  discussing  the  proposition 
whether  we  ought  to  he  Seventh-day  Adventists, 
but,  taking  the  ground  which  he  has  chosen, 
whether,  as  Adventists,  we  ought  to  support  the 
proposed  amendment.  This  being  done,  we  are 
ready  to  inquire.  What  is  the  peculiar  faith  of 
the  people  in  question  ? 

We  answer,  1.  They  believe  that  Jesus  Christ 


102  COXSriTUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

is  about  to  come  in  the  clouds  of  heaven.  2. 
That  they  represent  a  body  of  believers  v/hich 
the  Lord  is  raising  up  in  order  that  they  may 
lift  the  standard  of  his  downtrodden  law  and 
Sabbath,  as  one  around  v/hich  those  who  will  be 
ready  to  hail  him  at  his  appearing,  though  few 
in  numbers,  will  ultimately  be  gathered.  3. 
That,  in  the  light  of  prophecy,  those  who  thus 
break  away  from  the  errors  of  the  papacy  are  in 
danger  of  persecution,  not  from  infidels  and 
atheists,  bad  as  they  may  be,  but  from  those 
who,  in  the  guise  of  religion,  shall,  without  war- 
rant from  God,  endeavor  to  enforce  by  statute 
law  the  observance  of  a  day  which  finds  no 
authority  in  the  word  of  God,  but  has  for  its 
support  simply  the  dictum  of  the  man  of  sin.  4. 
That  the  very  body  of  men  whose  appearance  in 
this  country  they  have  for  twenty  years  so  con- 
fidently predicted,  as  being  the  ones  who  should 
do  the  V70rk  in  question,  have  actually  appeared, 
and  are  inaugurating  the  campaign  which  is  very 
soon  to  be  waged  with  unrelenting  fury  against 
those  who  keep  the  commandments  of  God  and 
the  faith  of  Jesus. 

All  these  features  of  their  faith  were  shadowed 
forth  in  our  communications  in  the  Statesman. 

With  this  understanding,  how  utterly  empty 
and  infelicitous  is  the  logic  of  our  friend.  Take, 
for  example,  his  chosen  illustration  of  the  island- 
ers. There  is  in  it  hardly  a  single  point  appropos 
to  the  case  in  hand. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  103 

1.  The  island  to  which  the  missionaries  are 
supposed  to  go  is  one  in  which,  according  to  his 
statement,  the  fourth-day  Sabbath  is  already 
acknowledged  as  such  in  their  Constitution  of 
government,  and  therefore  carries  with  it  the 
sanction  and  authority  of  statute  law ;  whereas, 
with  us  there  is  no  such  Constitutional  acknowl- 
edgment. 

2.  In  the  case  of  the  islanders,  their  mistake 
in  the  selection  of  the  day  is  evidently  attrib- 
uted wholly  to  ignorance,  since  they  were  in 
possession  of  only  a  part  of  the  Bible,  and  their 
remedy  was  to  be  found  in  furnishing  them  v/ith 
copies  of  the  complete  v,^ork ;  but  our  opponents, 
on  the  contrary,  are  in  possession,  and  have  been 
from  childhood,  of  the  Scriptures  in  full.  Nor 
can  the  ministry,  who  are  leading  the  movement 
in  question,  plead  ignorance  of  the  line  of  argu- 
ment by  which  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  is  sup- 
ported, since,  for  at  least  two  hundred  years,  it 
has  been  iterated  and  reiterated,  until  their  fa- 
miliarity with  it  and  their  complete  rejection  of 
it  is  proved,  not  only  by  what  they  say,  but  also 
by  what  they  do.  Instance  the  fining  and  im- 
prisonment, at  sundry  times,  even  in  this  coun- 
try, of  men  who,  having  conscientiously  observed 
the  seventh  day,  have  attempted  to  enjoy  the 
privilege  which  God  has  given  them,  both  by 
precept  and  example,  of  working  on  the  first  day 
of  the  week. 

3.  In   the   case  cited,  the  infidel  minority  is 


104  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

supposed  to  be  on  the  point  of  mounting  the 
throne  of  power,  and  of  sweeping  away  every 
vestige  of  the  Sabbatli  institution ;  whereas,  in 
our  case,  as  seen  above,  the  danger  which  threat- 
ens the  people  of  God  in  these  last  days,  is  not 
to  be  apprehended  alone  from  those  who  scoff  at 
God  and  the  Bible,  but  from  those  who,  accord- 
ing to  Paul,  having  "  a  form  of  godliness,"  shall 
"  deny  the  power  thereof."  In  other  words,  who, 
while  accepting  the  Scriptures,  if  you  please, 
shall  disregard  their  explicit  statements,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  commandments,  substituting  in 
the  place  of  the  seventh  day,  which  God  has 
styled  his  Sabbath,  the  first,  which  he  has  never 
claimed  as  his  own,  nor  enjoined  on  any  man. 

With  this  statement  of  our  views,  further  re- 
mark is  uncalled  for.  We  think  that  even  our 
reviewer  will  now  perceive  that,  before  he  could 
bring  us  to  accept  as  logical  the  proposition 
numbered  three,  above,  it  would  be  necessary  for 
him  to  overturn  the  very  foundations  of  the  sys- 
tem of  truth  which  we  now  hold.  This,  how- 
ever, we  fancy  is  a  task  w^hich  our  opponent, 
judging  from  the  line  of  argument  which  he  has 
thus  far  pursued,  would  not  undertake  with 
much  prospect  of  success,  until  he  has  become 
more  thoroughly  conversant  with  the  scope  and 
nature  of  the  work  in  which  we  are  eno^ao^ed. 

Fourthly.  It  is  suggested  that  we  are  in  dan- 
ger of  being  classed  with  infidels  and  atheists. 

So  far  as  this  peril  is   concerned,  we  simply 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  105 

remark  that  it  is  generally  found  to  be  best  in 
the  long  run  to  do  right  for  the  sake  of  right, 
regardless  of  what  men  may  say  concerning  you, 
leavinor  the  result  with  God.  The  individual 
who  would  desert  sound  principles  because  some 
wicked  man  or  set  of  men  might,  for  the  time 
being,  be  confounded  with  him,  is  destitute  of 
true  morality.  Besides,  in  the  matter  in  question, 
who  is  it  from  whom  Seventh-day  Adventists 
need  apprehend  that  such  an  erroneous  impres- 
sion will  receive  publicity  ?  We  trust  not  from 
our  friend,  because,  in  the  article  in  question,  he 
frankly  acknowledges  their  devotion  to  the  Bible 
in  its  strict  construction. 

Is  it,  then,  from  the  infidels  themselves  ?  Well, 
if  it  should  be,  we  think  we  can  undeceive  them. 
I  will  tell  you  what  we  will  do.  Whenever  they 
attempt  to  "  fawn  upon  us  overmuch,"  we  will 
preach  to  them  the  laiu  of  God,  Sabbath  and  all, 
and  my  word  for  it,  they  will  themselves  shortly 
draw  a  line  of  demarkation  between  them  and 
us,  so  broad  and  distinct  that  all  who  are  not 
willfully  blind  will  have  no  difficulty  in  discern- 
ing it ;  for  it  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  it  is  as 
true  now  as  it  formerly  wa,s,  that  the  "  cai'nal 
mind  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither 
indeed  can  be."  The  infidel  of  the  present  day 
hates  that  law  with  a  hatred,  the  intensity  of 
wliich  is  only  equalled  by  that  of  the  large  body 
of  first-day  observers — \ve  are  happy  to  say  not 
of  the  Statesman  school — who  have  abolished  the 


106  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

ten  commandments  in  order  to  dispose  of  one  of 
them,  and  whoso  special  delight  seems  to  consist 
in  berating  the  law  which  David  pronounced 
"perfect,"  and  Paul  declared  to  be  "  holy,  just, 
and  good." 

Finally,  we  submit  that  when  it  can  bo  shown, 
1.  That  God  would  be  better  pleased  with  a  nation 
having  a  Constitution  which  contained  his  printed 
name,  while  wielding  the  whole  power  of  that 
Constitution  against  the  only  Sabbath  which  he 
has  ever  commanded,  than  he  would  be  with  one 
which — while  his  name  v\^ould  fail  to  appear  in 
its  fundamental  law — v/as  nevertheless  adminis- 
tered in  the  interests  of  civil  and  religious  lib- 
erty ;  and  2.  That  the  best  method  of  converting- 
atheists  is  one  by  v/hich  they  would  be  exasper- 
ated by  lines  and  imprisonments  inflicted  in  the 
name  of  the  God  of  the  Bible  for  the  desecration 
of  a  day  which  they  know  that  it  nowhere  com- 
mands ;  and  3.  That  it  would  be  reasonable  to 
expect  that  men  should,  by  their  votes,  elevate 
to  place  and  authority  those  who  are  destined  to 
put  manacles  upon  their  wrists,  and  padlocks 
upon  their  tongues ;  then,  and  not  till  then,  can 
Seventh-day  Adventists  be  expected  to  support 
an  amendment  which,  though  in  many  respects 
desirable,  will  inevitably  be  employed  against 
God,  his  people,  and  his  law. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  107 


STATESMAN'S    KEPLY 


^  2?.  T  I  C  L  E      T-ST^O 


THE  SEVENTH  DAY  NOT  OBSERVED    BY   THE  EARLY 
CHRISTIAN  CHURCH. 

Having  shown  in  our  last  article  that  seventh- 
day  Sabbatarians,  to  be  consistent  with  themselves 
in  appealing  to  the  Bible  as  of  supreme  authority, 
should  be  among  the  earnest  friends  of  the  Relig- 
ious Amendment,  we  come  now  to  consider  their 
argumetit  against  the  first-day  Sabbath. 

On  many  points  dwelt  upon  in  the  articles  we 
have  published,  there  is  no  difference  of  view. 
We  believe  that  the  Sabbath  was  instituted,  not 
in  the  wilderness,  for  Israel;  but  in  Eden,  for 
mankind.  We  maintain,  also,  that  tlie  law  of  the 
Sabbath  is  an  essential  part  of  the  great  moral 
code  of  the  ten  commandments,  spoken  by  God's 
voice  amid  the  awful  manifestations  of  Sinai,  and 
written  by  the  finger  of  God  on  tables  of  stone  as 
a  law  of  perpetual  obligation  for  tlie  whole  hu- 
man family.  These,  and  other  points  admitted 
on  both  sides,  need  not  occupy  time  and  space  in 
this  discussion.  We  are  concerned  here,  and  now, 
simply  v/ith  the  transfer  of  the  Sabbath  from  the 
seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week.  Our  read- 
ers have  had  before  them  an  argument,  of  consid- 
erable length,  to  show  that  God  never  authorized 
a  change  of  day.  We  proceed  to  prove  that  the 
transfer  was  made  by  divine  authority  and  ap- 
proval. 

In  doing  this,  we  shall  first  have  to  inquire 
into  the  facts  of  history.     We  shall  have  to  ask. 


108  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

Was  the  observance  of  the  seventh-clay  Sabbath, 
acknowledged  as  binding  up  to  the  resurrection 
of  Christ,  continued  by  the  apostles  and  the  early 
church  after  that  event  ?  Was  any  other  day 
substituted  by  them  in  its  place  ?  For  an  answer 
to  these  questions,  we  must  appeal  to  facts.  We 
make  our  appeal  to  the  records  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. A  careful  and  thorough  examination  of 
these  authoritative  records  shows  conclusively 
that  the  seventh  day  ivas  not  ohsevved  as  the 
Sabbath  after  the  Tesurrectiou  of  Christ  by  tlie 
apostles  and  tJte  early  church. 

It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  Christ  himself, 
before  his  death,  and  his  disciples,  up  to  the  time 
of  his  resurrection,  kept  the  seventh  day  holy. 
It  is  also  admitted  on  both  sides  that  after  the 
resurrection  the  apostles  and  other  followers  of 
Christ  kept  holy  one  day  in  seven.  While  they 
abounded  daily  in  the  work  of  the  Lord,  the 
seventh-day  Sabbatarians  will  concede  with  us 
that  there  was  still  one  day  marked  out  from  the 
rest  of  the  week  as  sacred  time.  What  day  was 
thus  distinguished  ?  Was  it  the  seventh,  other- 
wise known  as  the  Sabbath  ?     Let  us  see. 

The  word  Sabbath  occurs  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, after  the  close  of  the  gospel  history,  twelve 
times.  In  two  of  these  instances,  viz..  Acts  20  : 
7,  and  1  Cor.  16:2,  the  word  means  "  week,"  and 
not  the  seventh  day,  as  also  in  a  number  of  in- 
stances in  the  gospels.  In  Acts  1:12,  the  word 
is  used  to  indicate  a  cei-tain  distance.  The  term 
is  employed  in  two  other  places,  viz..  Acts  13  :  27, 
and  15  :  21,  in  incidental  reference  to  the  service 
of  the  Jewish  synagogues.  In  Colossians  2: 16, 
Paul  mentions  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  only  to 
deny  the  obligation  of  its  observance.     This  im- 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SADBATII.  109 

portant  passage  will  be  considered  farther  on. 
There  remain,  then,  six  instances,  two  of  them  in 
regard  to  one  and  the  same  day  and  meeting,  in 
wdiich  the  word  is  found  in  accounts  of  gather- 
ings for  religious  purposes  on  that  day,  the  sev- 
enth of  the  week.  These  meetings  were  as  fol- 
lows:  1.  At  Antioch,  in  Pisidia,  Acts  13:14;  2. 
At  the  same  place,  the  next  seventh  day.  Acts 
13:42,44;  3.  At  Philippi,  Acts  16:13;  4.  At 
Thessalonica,  Acts  17:2;  and  5.  At  Corinth, 
Acts  18  :  4.  At  Thessalonica,  there  were  three 
Sabbaths,  and  at  Corinth,  every  Sabbath,  it  may 
be  inferred,  for  several  weeks,  thus  marked  by 
relicfious  meetino^s.  We  are  informed  that  Pa.ul 
went  into  the  synagogue  at  Thessalonica  on  the 
Sabbath,  or  seventh  day,  "  as  his  manner  was." 
And,  accordingly,  particularly  during  his  first 
and  second,  or  his  more  properly  termed,  mission- 
ary tours,  as  distinguished  from  his  journeys  in 
revisiting  churches  already  organized,  we  may 
unhesitatingly  infer  that  there  were  other  similar 
meetings  on  the  seventh  day,  as  at  Salamis,  Acts 
13  :  15  ;  at  Iconium,  Acts  14  :  1  ;  and  at  Ephesus, 
Acts  18  :  19,  and  19  :  8. 

And  here  we  note  the  fact  that  in  not  a  single 
one  of  these  instances  ivas  the  meeting  a  gather- 
ing of  Christians.  In  no  case  was  it  the  assem- 
bly of  the  members  of  a  Christian  church  for 
worship.  In  every  case,  these  meetings  on  the 
seventh  day  were  in  Jewish  places  of  worship, 
all  in  synagogues  regularly  occupied  by  Jewish 
assemblies,  except  that  at  Philippi,  which  was  at 
a  'proseiicha,  a  Jewish  place  of  prayer  out  of  the 
city  by  the  liver's  side.  In  every  instance,  it  was 
a  gathering  of  Jews  and  Jewish  proselytes,  with 
the  addition  of  a  greater  or  lesser  number  of 


110  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

Gentiles,  the  sight  of  a  crowd  of  whom  at  Antioch, 
the  second  day  of  meeting  in  their  synagogue, 
excited  the  jealousy  and  rage  of  the  Jews.  And 
in  these  gatherings,  in  every  case,  Paul  labored 
as  a  missionary,  glad  to  avail  himself  of  every 
opportunity  to  proclaim  the  saving  truths  of  the 
gospel  of  Christ. 

Can  any  intelligent  and  candid  reader  of  the 
inspired  records  fail  to  understand  the  narrative 
of  Paul's  missionary  work  ?  He  was  sent  forth 
"  to  turn  sinners  from  darkness  to  light."  As  he 
himself  states  at  Antioch,  addressing  the  Jews : 
"  It  was  necessary  that  the  word  of  God  should 
first  have  been  spoken  to  you."  His  "heart's 
desire  and  prayer  to  God  for  Israel  was  that  they 
might  be  saved."  Accordingly,  wherever  he 
went,  he  was  found  going  to  them  on  the  sev- 
enth day  in  their  places  of  Avorship,  not  in  Chris- 
tian houses  of  prayer;  meeting  with  them  in 
their  assemblies,  not  in  assemblies  of  professed 
followers  of  Christ.  Just  as  a  Christian  mission- 
ary, in  modern  times,  going  to  a  heathen  land, 
would  avail  himself,  if  possible,  of  the  customary 
assemblies  of  the  residents,  whatever  day  they 
might  keep  holy,  so  Paul  and  his  fellow-mission- 
aries availed  themselves  of  the  seventh-day  as- 
semblies of  the  Jews,  that  from  among  them,  as 
well  as  from  among  the  Gentiles,  they  might  gath- 
er out  an  ecclesia — a  body  of  followers  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  in  whom  Jev/  and  Gentile  should  be  one. 

The  question,  therefore,  still  remains  to  be  an- 
swered :  Which  day  of  the  week  did  the  church 
at  Jerusalem,  existing  at  the  time  of  Christ's 
ascension,  which  day  did  the  apostles  in  their 
relations  with  this  church,  which  day  did  the 
churches,  organized  and  established  by  the  apos- 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  Ill 

ties,  and  under  their  example  and  divine  author- 
ity, observe  as  a  holy  day,  a  Sabbath  to  the 
Lord  ?  In  all  tlie  references  to  the  seventh  day, 
or  Jewish  Sabbath,  there  is  not,  as  we  have  seen, 
a  particle  of  evidence  that  that  day  was  thus  ob- 
served. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  positive  testimony 
that  the  very  congregations  or  churches  of 
Christians,  orga^nized  at  the  places  where  Paul 
performed  missionary  labor  on  the  seventh  day, 
ignored  that  day,  and  in  its  stead  observed  an- 
other day  of  the  week  as  holy  time.  For  exam- 
ple, at  Corinth,  ''as  his  manner  was,"  Paul  went 
lirst  to  the  Jews  and  preached  to  them  in  their 
synagogue,  the  word  of  God,  reasoninrj  ^vith  them, 
and  persuading  them  and  the  Greeks  to  accept 
of  Christ.  Then,  when  the  Jews  opposed  them- 
selves and  blasphemed,  he  shook  his  raiment,  and 
said  unto  them,  "  Your  blood  be  upon  your  own 
heads ;  I  am  clean :  from  henceforth  I  will  go 
unto  the  Gentiles."  So  he  left  the  synagogue 
and  the  Jews,  not  the  city,  and  entering  into  the 
house  of  Justus,  received  Crispus,  the  chief  ruler 
of  the  synagogue,  with  all  his  house,  and  many 
of  the  Corinthians,  as  converts  into  the  Christian 
church.  Here  we  have  the  church  of  Corinth. 
Which  day  of  the  week  did  it  observe  as  the 
Sabbath  of  the  Lord  ?  the  seventh  ?  Though 
Paul  "  continued  there  a  year  and  six  months, 
teaching  the  word  of  God  among  them,"  there  is 
not  a  word  more  about  seventh-day  services. 
This,  it  is  true,  would  be  merely  nega^tive,  if  it 
were  all.  But  this  is  not  all.  In  Paul's  direc- 
tion to  this  same  church,  a  few  years  later,  he 
makes  clear  and  certain,  what  before  was  proba- 
ble, that  their  stated  day  for  religious  services 


112  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

was  not  the  seventh,  but  the  first,  day  of  the 
week.  1  Cor.  IG  :  2.  The  plain  and  most  ex- 
plicit teaching  of  this  passage  v/ill  be  fully  con- 
sidered hereafter. 

Again,  when  Paul  entered  into  the  synagogue 
at  Ephesus,  and  reasoned  with  the  Jews  (Acts 
18  :  19),  and,  because  he  could  not  tarry  long  at 
this  time,  soon  returned  again,  and  met  the  ob- 
jections of  disputatious  Jews  for  the  space  of 
three  months  (Acts  19:8),  his  labors  as  a  mis- 
sionary are  said  to  have  been  in  the  synagogue, 
no  doubt  on  the  Sabbath  of  the  Jews,  or  the 
seventh  day.  But  once  more  separating  the 
Christian  converts  from  the  unbelieving  and 
blaspheming  Jews,  and  forming  the  Christian 
church  of  Ephesus,  he  continued  there  in  inces- 
sant labors  for  two  years.  And  now  we  hear  no 
more  of  seventh-day  assemblies.  This,  again, 
may  be  said  to  be  merely  negative,  as  we  hear  of 
no  special  honor  put  upon  any  day.  But  we 
have  not  done  with  this.  Passing  the  last  years 
of  his  life  in  this  city  of  Ephesus,  the  apostle 
John  writes  of  "the  Lord's  day,"  known  and 
observed  by  the  Christians  among  whom  he 
dwelt.  That  this  holy  day  of  the  early  church, 
called  the  Lord's  day,  was  not  the  seventh,  but 
the  first,  is  shown  by  the  most  satisfactory  his- 
torical testimony,  which  will  be  adduced  in  full 
in  its  proper  connection. 

Once  more.  When  Paul  came  to  Troas  to 
preach  Christ's  gospel,  and  a  door  was  opened  to 
him  of  the  Lord  (2  Cor.  2:12),  whether  it  was 
on  his  first  very  brief  visit  (Acts  IG  :  8),  or  more 
probably  in  going  over  "  those  parts,"  on  his  way 
from  Ephesus  to  Macedonia  (Acts  20 : 2),  he  no 
doubt,  "  as  his  manner  was,"  went  into  the  syn- 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SAB13ATII.  113 

accotcue  and  reasoned  with  the  Jews.  A  cong^re- 
gation  of  Christian  disciples  was  formed,  and  the 
ajDOstle  departed  for  Greece.  After  an  absence  of 
some  months,  Paul  returns  to  Troas,  and  with  his 
companions  remains  there  seven  days,  departing 
again  on  the  second  day  of  the  week.  Whether 
he  departed  on  the  first  or  second,  however,  the 
fact  remains  that,  during  his  abode  of  seven  da3^s 
at  Troas,  there  was  one"  seventh  day.  Do  we 
hear  of  any  religious  meeting  on  that  day  ?  Did 
the  disciples  then  assemble  for  divine  service  ? 
Let  us  hear  the  record  :  "  We  abode  seven  days. 
And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  the 
disciples  came  together  to  break  bread,  Paul 
preached  unto  them,  ready  to  depart  on  the 
morrow."  The  seventli  day  is  passed  by.  The 
day  for  the  assembling  of  the  Christian  disciples 
is  not  the  Sabbath  of  the  Jews.  Another  day 
has  taken  its  place.  This  most  explicit  instance 
at  Troas  of  ignoring  the  seventh  day,  and  honor- 
ing another  in  its  place,  as  the  stated  day  for  the 
religious  services  of  Christians,  abundantly  con- 
firms, if  confirmation  were  needed,  the  conclu- 
sions already  readied  in  the  instances  at  Corinth 
and  Ephesus. 

Thus  the  facts  of  the  records  of  inspired  history 
conclusively  prove  that  the  seventh  day  was  not 
observed  by  the  apostles  and  early  Christians  as 
their  sacred  day  of  divine  worship,  or  the  Sab- 
bath of  the  Lord.  We  might  add  here  that  the 
testimony  of  all  the  earliest  Christian  writers, 
who  received  from  the  apostles  and  the  com- 
panions of  the  apostles  the  institutions  of  the 
Christian  church,  is  full  and  explicit  to  the  same 
effect.     Bat  we  shall  hear  their  evidence  for  the 

Con    Am.  8  B 


114  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

first  day,  and  thus  also  against  the  seventh,  in 
good  time. 

It  will  now  be  in  place  to  consider  how  apos- 
tolic Yjrecept  corresponds  with  apostolic  example, 
and  that  of  the  churches,  in  regard  to  the  seventh 
day.  Colossians  2  :  16,  a  most  important  passage, 
making  particular  mention  of  the  seventh-day 
Sabbath,  yet  singularly  overlooked  by  seventh- 
day  Sabbatarians,  now  claims  our  attention  for  a 
moment.  Judaizing  teachers,  so  busy  every- 
where throughout  the  early  church,  had  been  at 
work  among  the  Christian  disciples  at  Colosse. 
They  had  been  insisting  upon  the  observance  of 
the  seventh  day  as  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord. 
One  would  think  that  some  of  these  men  had 
come  down  to  our  time  and  learned  to  use  very 
good  English.  We  refer  these  representatives  of 
an  ancient,  but  not  honorably  mentioned,  class 
for  instruction  to  the  apostle's  words  to  the 
Colossians  :  "Let  no  man  judge  you  in  meat  or 
in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a  holy  day  [literally,  of 
a  feast],  or  of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath 
days;''  i.  e.,  of  yearly,  monthly,  or  weekly 
Jewish  celebrations.  We  do  not  wait  to  examine 
the  parallel  passages  in  Gal.  4  :  10,  and  Rom.  14 : 
5,  where  the  obligation  of  Jewish  observances, 
including  the  seventh-day  Sabbatii  is  denied,  and 
where,  in  the  latter  case,  to  make  the  argument 
even  strongrer,  the  toleration  of  these  observances 
as  a  weakness  is  considerately  advised.  Surely, 
it  is  no  wonder  that  seventh-day  Sabbatarians 
seem  not  to  be  aware  of  the  existence  of  these 
portions  of  the  divine  word !  It  cannot  be 
pleasant  to  be  made  to  feel  that,  like  the  Juda- 
izers   of  old,  they  bring  themselves   under  the 


SUNDAY    AND    TJiE    SADIJATII.  115 

,sliar|)  rebuke  of  the  inspired  apostle  by  judging 
Christians  in  respect  of  the  seventh -day  Sabbath. 
We  will  now  sum  up  this  part  of  the  discus- 
sion :  Admitting  that  tlie  Sabbath  was  instituted 
in  Eden  for  mankind;  that  it  is  of  perpetual 
obligation ;  that  it  was  observed  by  Christ  him- 
self before  his  death,  and  by  his  disciples  until 
his  resurrection,  as  by  the  Jews  of  old,  on  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week ;  we  have  gone  on  to 
see  that  the  apostles  and  the  early  church,  still 
having  one  stated  day  each  week  as  a  holy  day, 
did  not  continue  the  observance  of  the  seventh 
day.  We  have  seen  that  the  seventh  day,  after 
the  resurrection,  is  mentioned  only  in  connection 
with  assemblies,  in  Jewish  places  of  worship,  of 
Jews,  Jewish  proselytes,  and,  in  some  instances, 
a  larger  or  smaller  addition  of  Gentiles,  among 
all  of  whom  the  apostle  labored  as  a  missionary 
for  the  conversion  of  souls,  and  the  formation  of 
Christian  cono-reofations,  or  churches.  We  have 
found  that  no  instance  can  be  adduced  of  the 
apostles  in  their  relations  to  Christian  churches, 
nor  of  assemblies  of  Christian  disciples,  meeting 
to  observe  the  seventh  day  as  the  Sabbath  of  the 
Lord.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  found  them 
ignoring  the  seventh  day  and  honoring  another, 
in  perfect  harmony  with  the  apostle  Paul's  re- 
buke of  Judaizing  teachers  who  insisted  on  hav- 
ing Christian  disciples  observe  the  seventh 
day,  and  his  condescending  toleration  of  their 
weakness. 


116  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMEN' 


A    KE  JOINDER 


"THE  SEVENTH  DAY  NOT  OBSERVED  BY  THE  EARLY 
CHRISTIAN  CHURCH." 

It  is,  we  confess,  witli  some  degree  of  embar- 
rassment, that  we  attempt  the  answering  of  the 
second  article  from  the  pen  of  the  editor  of  the 
Statesman,  in  reply  to  the  argument  which  we 
presented  in  the  columns  of  that  paper.  Our 
difficulty  does  not  arise  from  any  confusion  into 
which  we  have  been  thrown  by  the  superior  logic 
of  our  opponent ;  it  consists,  rather,  in  knowing 
just  where  and  how  to  commence  the  work. 

So  far  as  statements  are  concerned,  they  are 
numerous  and  repeated  again  and  again,  in  sub- 
stance. But  we  have  no  disposition,  nor  have 
we  the  space,  to  take  them  up  singly,  in  their 
numerical  and  repetitious  order,  for  consideration. 
And,  besides,  the  fallacy  of  nearly  every  one  of 
them  has  been  demonstrated  in  what  we  have 
already  written.  This  being  the  case,  we  have 
determined  to  take  the  general  scope  of  the  criti- 
cism, and  thus,  as  briefly  as  may  be,  make  sr.g- 
2:estions  which,  if  carried  out,  will  answer  its 
assumptions,  as  well  as  its  attempted  efforts  at 
deduction. 

We  remark,  then,  in  the  outset,  that  we  are 
happy  to  meet  the  writer  upon  the  common 
ground  of  a  Sabbath  having  originated  in  Eden, 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABnATII.  117 

and  inserted  in  a  law  of  perpetual  obligation  on 
both  Jews  and  Gentiles. 

Let  the  reader  keep  these  mutual  concessions 
continually  before  his  eyes.  Tliey  are  of  great 
significance  in  this  debate.  1.  They  prove  that 
the  Sabbath  is  not  Jewish  in  its  origin,  but  was 
given  to  Adam,  as  their  representative  head,  for 
the  benefit  of  the  whole  race,  more  than  two 
thousand  years  before  there  was  a  Jew  in  exist- 
ence. 2.  They  also  prove  that  the  Sabbath  in- 
stitution was  rendered  obligatory  upon  all  men 
by  a  divine  precept,  with  the  phraseology  of 
which  we  are  all  acquainted.  3.  That  that  pre- 
cept is  explicit  in  its  declaration  tha,t  the  last 
and  not  the  first  day  of  the  week  was  the  Sab- 
bath. 4.  That  before  any  other  day  can  be 
substituted  in  the  place  of  the  one  designated, 
the  Power  which  originated  it  must  authorize  tlie 
change. 

So  much  for  the-  important  results  which  nec- 
essarily flov,'  from  the  principles  which  we  hold 
in  common,  if  indeed  we  are  right  in  supposing 
that  the  writer  really  means  what  he  actually 
says ;  namely,  that  he  holds  to  the  perpetuity  of 
the  fourth  commandment  of  the  decalogue.  We 
shall  see,  hereafter,  whether  or  not  his  statements 
are  to  be  taken  for  all  which  they  express. 

We  advance,  now,  in  our  examination  of  the 
criticism  before  us. 

What  direction,  then,  does  the  effort  take  in 
the  main  ?     It  will  be  granted  that  the  plan  of 


118  COXSTITUTIONAL    AMEIsDMENT. 

defense  adopted  is  that  of  attempting  to  prove 
that  the  early  church  did  violate  the  seventh,  and 
did  honor  the  first,  day  of  the  week.  But  with 
what  success  has  the  efibrt  been  attended  ?  We 
know  that  it  is  stated  several  times  that  the 
apostles  disregarded  what  the  author  is  pleased 
to  call  the  Jeivish  Sabbath— after  he  had  con- 
ceded the  principle  that  that  of  the  command- 
ment was  Edenic  in  its  origin — but  did  he  make 
out  his  case  ?  So  far  from  it,  in  every  instance 
where  he  has  found  them  connected  in  the  record 
with  the  Sabbath  day,  it  has  ever  been  in  the 
performance  of  duties  religious  in  their  nature. 
For  should  we  concede  that  he  is  right  in  sup- 
posing that  Paul  went  into  the  synagogues  to 
teach  on  the  Sabbath  day,  simply  because  he 
would  find  hearers  there,  this,  assuredly,  would 
not  prove  that  Paul  was  a  Sabbath-breaker. 

Let  me  take  the  gentleman's  favorite  illustra- 
tion of  a  missionary  in  a  foreign  land,  at  the 
present  time.  Now  suppose  that  his  lot  were 
cast  in  a  country  where  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
or  the  day  of  the  sun,  was  regarded  as  holy  by 
the  natives,  and  he  should  be  found  on  that  day 
regularly  teaching  them  in  their  places  of  assem- 
bly, would  tltat  decide  the  question  that  he  was 
necessarily  a  violator  of  the  first-day  Sabbath  ? 
You  answer  immediately  in  the  negative.  So, 
too,  in  the  case  of  Paul.  The  fact  that  it  can  be 
shown  that  it  was  his  custom  to  teach  in  the 
synagogues  on  the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  if  it 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  119 

Las  no  power  to  prove  that  he  was  a  conscien- 
tious observer  of  that  day,  cannot  at  least  be 
cited  as  furnishing  evidence  that  he  disregarded 
it.  We  ask,  then,  again,  Has  a  scintilla  of  posi- 
tive testimony  been  given  that  Paul  ever  broke 
a  single  Sabbath  of  the  Lord,  as  contained  in 
the  divine  precept  ?  Once  more  it  must  be  con- 
ceded that  there  has  not.  But  is  it  not  a  little 
singular  that  in  a  history  of  thirty  years,  where 
the  Sabbath  is  so  often  mentioned,  not  one  sins^le 
action  has  ever  been  discovered  in  the  least  in- 
compatible with  Paul's  veneration  of  the  seventh 
day  ?     We  let  the  reader  answer. 

Furthermore,  we  have  from  the  pen  of  our  op- 
ponent himself  the  frank  admission  that,  in  the 
historic  territory  over  which  he  has  been  passing, 
it  has  been  uniformly  true  that  both  Luke  and 
Paul  have  ever,  wdien  speaking  of  the  seventh 
day,  called  it  "  the  Sabbath."  Now  let  the 
reader  remember  that  this  confession  is  full  and 
sweeping  in  its  character.  Then  let  him  ask 
himself  whether  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that 
men,  having  repudiated  an  old  Sabbath,  and 
zealous  for  the  establishment  of  a  new  one, 
would  be  likely  to  make  up  the  record  in  ques- 
tion in  such  a  form  that  the  old  Sabbath,  when- 
ever spoken  of,  should  alwa^^s  be  styled  "the 
Sabbath,"  and  the  new  one  be  mentioned  merely 
as  the  "first  day  of  the  week?"  In  order  to  im- 
press the  fallacy  of  such  an  idea,  we  have  but  to 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  men,  at  the  present 


120  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT, 

time,  possessing  the  same  natures  and  dispositions 
as  formerly,  would  avoid  such  a  course  with  the 
most  scrupulous  care.  Instance  the  fact  that  sev- 
enth-day observers  never  allude  to  the  Sunday  as 
the  Sabbath,  but  avoid  such  a  reference  under  all 
circumstances ;  while  the  devotees  of  the  Sunday, 
when  speaking  of  the  last  day  of  the  week,  al- 
most uniformly  speak  of  it  as  the  Jewish  Sabbath, 
if  Sabbath  they  will  allow  themselves  to  call  it 
at  all. 

But  again.  We  are  told,  very  candidly,  thai 
by  the  word  Sabbath,  in  Acts  13 :  44,  where  it  is 
said  that  the  "next  Sabbath  day  came  almost 
the  whole  city  together"  to  hear  the  word  of 
God,  is  meant  the  next  seventh  day  succeeding 
the  first  seventh  day  on  which  Paul  addressed 
the  Jews  at  Antioch.  This  being  true,  it  is  set- 
tled beyond  dispute  that,  in  the  mind  of  Luke, 
there  was  no  Sabbath  day  occurring  between  the 
one  on  which  Paul  spoke  to  the  people,  and  the 
seventh  day  of  the  next  week  when  he  addressed 
them  the  second  time;  for,  if  there  had  been, 
then  it  would  not  have  been  proper  to  call  the 
last  Sabbath  mentioned  the  '"'  next "  one,  since 
another  Sabbath  would  have  intervened  between 
the  two  in  question.  In  other  words,  according 
to  the  view  of  our  friend,  the  Sunday,  which  was 
the  next  day  after  the  first  discourse  of  Paul, 
was  really  the  next  Sabbath  which  followed  it ; 
whereas,  the  inspired  penman  ignores   it  alto- 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SABBATH.  121 

getlier,  and,  passing  over  it  with  silence,  calls  tlie 
last  day  of  tliat  same  week  "  the  Sabbath." 

Again,  it  is  stated  in  Acts  15  :  21,  that  the 
''  Scriptures  are  read  in  the  synagogues  every 
Sabbath  day."  Here,  again,  it  is  conceded  that 
the  reference  is  to  the  seventh  day  of  the  week. 
If  this  be  true,  however,  then  James,  as  well  as 
Luke,  had,  in  his  lexicon  of  terms,  the  "  Sabbath 
day  "  as  the  one  which  answered  to  the  seventh 
day  and  not  to  the  first ;  for  no  one  will  insist 
that  the  Scriptures  were  read  in  the  synagogues 
of  the  Jews  regularly  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week ;  but  James  says  that  they  were  read  there 
every  Sabbath  day;  therefore,  in  his  mind — as 
we  have  already  remarked — the  first  day  was 
not  the  Sabbath. 

Once  more :  It  is  stated  of  Paul  that  he  rea- 
soned in  the  synagogues  every  Sabbath,  and  per- 
suaded the  Jews  and  the  Greeks.  Here  also  it 
is  urged — admitting  that  the  reference  is  to  the 
seventh  day — that  Paul  went  into  the  synagogue 
in  order  to  £^et  a  hearinof.  But  this  he  could  not 
do  on  the  first  day,  since  he  would  have  found 
the  synagogue  closed,  and  no  audience.  Never- 
theless, the  statement  stands  unqualified  that 
Paul  preached  "  every  Sahhatltr  Now  if  this  be 
tiTie,  and  the  first  as  well  as  the  seventh  day 
might,  according  to  the  view  of  the  historian,  be 
called  a  Sabbath,  then  we  have  him  stating  that 
Paul  preached  in  the  place  in  question  on  both 
the  first  and  seventh  days.     On  the  other  hand, 


122  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

if  he  regarded  the  first  day  as  alone  the  Sabbath, 
then  he  meant  to  teach  that  Paul  preached  in 
the  synagogue  on  that  day,  and  that  day  only. 
But  my  opponent  will  not  insist  upon  either  of 
these  positions.  The  only  conclusion  that  is  left 
us,  therefore,  is  that  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  inspired 
Luke  in  the  selection  of  terms,  employed  the  ap- 
pellation of  Sabbath  as  applying  only  to  the  day 
which  had  been  sanctified  in  Eden,  and  had  al- 
ways been  known  by  that  title. 

Now  let  us  give  our  attention  for  a  moment  to 
the  objection  so  strongly  urged  that  in  the  book 
of  the  Acts,  and  in  the  epistles,  there  is  no  well- 
authenticated  instance  in  which  the  apostles  held 
meetings,  with  Christians  exclusively,  on  the 
seventh  day.  The  point  of  the  proposition  might 
be  thus  stated  :  If  the  early  Christians  did  hold 
meetings  on  the  seventh  day,  the  record  would 
have  shown  it :  this  it  fails  to  do ;  therefore,  the 
presumption  is  that  they  did  not  regard  it  as  holy. 

This  is  a  sword  that  cuts  both  ways,  if  it  cuts 
at  all.  We  do  not  wonder  that,  when  our  friend 
laid  hold  of  its  hilt,  he  said,  tremblingly,  This  is 
a  negative  weapon;  so  that,  when  we  should 
attempt  to  borrow  it  of  him,  we  might  find  the 
edge,  which  was  designed  for  his  own  neck, 
dulled  by  his  own  concession. 

But  let  us  proceed.  Is  it  true,  so  far  as  the 
ancient  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  is  concerned,  that, 
unless  we  can  find  historic  accounts  of  its  observ- 
ance in  the  New  Testament,  we  must  therefore 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SAUBATII.  123 

conckiclc  that  it  was  not  regarded  ?  We  answer, 
No  ;  simply  because  its  observance  is  not  alone 
taught  by  precedent.  It  rests  upon  a  positive 
command  of  God,  incorporated  in  a  Islw  which 
was  brought  over  into  this  dispensation,  as  we 
have  seen,  and  made  obligatory  upon  Christians. 
It  was  not,  therefore,  necessary  that  a  detailed 
account  of  its  observance  should  be  placed  upon 
the  record,  in  order  to  prove  that  it  was  regarded 
by  the  early  church ;  since  the  very  fact  that 
they  acknowledged  the  iav>^  of  God,  is  in  itself 
proof  that  they  sanctified  the  Sabbath  which  it 
ordained.  Until,  therefore,  the  gentleman  can 
shake  the  pillars  of  that  law — as  we  shall  show 
he  has  not  yet  succeeded  in  doing — it  is  of  itself 
a  guarantee  tliat  every  seventli  day  was  regarded 
with  solemnity  by  those  who  were  endeavoring 
to  keep  its  precepts. 

In  proof  of  this,  we  have  but  to  mention  the 
fact  that  from  Moses  to  David — a  space  covering 
five  hundred  years — the  term  Sabbath  is  not 
employed  once  in  the  sacred  history,  and  yet  the 
gentleman  will  agree  with  me  that  the  good  men 
of  those  ages  hallowed  it,  simply  because  he 
agrees  witli  me  that  they  had  a  precept  requiring 
them  to  do  so. 

But,  again,  we  must  be  allowed  to  insist  that 
the  very  silence  of  which  the  gentleman  com- 
plains does  indirectly  prove,  independent  of  the 
commandment,  that  the  first  generation  of  Chris- 
tians were  Sabbatarians.     What  we  mean  to  be 


124  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

understood  as  saying  is,  that  tliey  at  least  did 
not  violate  the  regulations  concerning  the  strict 
observance  of  the  Sabbath,  as  enforced  among 
the  Jews;  for  had  they  done  so,  a  record  of 
thirty  years  could  not  have  failed  to  bring  to 
light  numerous  collisions,  which  would  have  been 
inevitable  between  Jews  and  Christians,  the  one 
class  despising  and  trampling  down  the  Sabbath 
of  the  law,  and  the  other  following  them  with 
that  vulture  glance  of  inquisition,  by  which — as 
in  the  case  of  our  Lord — they  were  in  the  habit 
of  watching  their  antao^onists,  with  a  view  to 
condemning  them  before  the  law.  And,  besides, 
with  what  show  of  consistency  could  Paul  have 
stood  up  before  them,  announcing  himself  as  one 
who  had  never  violated  the  customs  of  the  fa- 
thers (Acts  28  :  17),  if  he  had  been  seen  weekly 
transgressing  the  law  of  one  of  the  dearest  insti- 
tutions handed  down  to  them  from  the  remotest 
antiquity  ? 

Thus  much  for  one  side  of  the  logic  of  our  op- 
ponent. Now  let  us  apply  it  to  the  Sunday. 
As  we  do  so,  it  will  be  recollected  that  there  has 
been  no  effort  made,  as  yet,  to  place  it  upon  a 
positive  precept.  Its  existence,  therefore,  if  such 
it  has  at  all,  must  be  attributable  to  precedent. 
Thus  far,  such  precedent  has  not  been  cited,  ex- 
cept by  way  of  anticipation.  When  it  comes  up, 
we  will  consider  it  in  order.  In  the  meantime, 
let  it  be  remembered  that  our  friend  has  volun- 
tarily taken  a  position  which  will  compel  him  to 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SACBATII.  125 

admit  thp.t,  unless  lie  can  find  at  least  one  clear 
and  unquestionable  case  in  which  the  Sunday 
was  from  beginning  to  end  devoutly  celebrated, 
his  cause  is  a  hopeless  one.  Nay,  more,  to 
make  out  his  point,  every  candid  mind  v>'ill 
demand  that,  in  the  absence  of  positive  command, 
he  shall  be  able  to  show  numerous  instances  in 
which  the  day,  whose  claims  he  seeks  to  vindi- 
cate, was  intelligently  honored ;  for,  be  it  remem- 
bered, that,  according  to  his  own  declaration,  the 
apostle  was  traveling  from  point  to  point,  writ- 
ing and  preaching,  and  Luke  was  keeping  a  diary 
of  his  labors,  for  the  purpose  of  instructing  that 
generation  of  Christians,  as  v^ell  as  this,  concei-n- 
ing  duty  and  doctrine.  If,  therefore,  Sunday 
sanctit}^  came  under  the  head  of  those  doctrines, 
it  was  important,  overwhelmingly  so,  that  such  a 
fact  should  be  set  forth  clearly,  since  an  habitual 
disregard  on  the  part  of  any,  of  the  new  Sabbath , 
would  bring  upon  them  the  condemnation  of 
Heaven.  Furthermore,  the  line  of  demarkation, 
which  the  new  day  would  have  drawn  between 
the  disciples  and  the  Hebrews,  would  have  been 
so  broad,  and  the  discussions  upon  those  points 
would  have  been  so  numerous  and  so  full,  while 
the  transition  was  taking  place,  that  its  existence 
could  not  have  failed  to  become  discernible  in  the 
writings  of  that  period. 

Here  we  must  change  our  line  of  argument, 
and  turn  to  the  consideration  of  Col.  2  :  14-17, 
and  of  Rom.  14  : .").     Our  opponent  intimates  that 


12G  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

Sabbatarians  are  in  the  habit  of  evading  these 
texts.  In  this  remark,  he  does  us  great  injustice. 
The  statement  is  so  far  from  being  true  that  I 
make  no  doubt  that,  within  the  last  twenty  years, 
Seventh-day  Adventist  preachers  alone  have,  b}^ 
voice  and  pen,  commented  upon  them  at  least  a 
thousand  times.  But  the  best  method  of  show- 
ing the  charge  to  be  untrue  will  be  found  in  an 
examination  of  the  texts  themselves.  The  first 
is  as  follows :  "  Blotting  out  the  handwriting  of 
ordinances  that  was  against  us,  which  was  con- 
trary to  us,  and  took  it  out  of  the  way,  nailing  it 
to  his  cross;  *  *  *  Let  no  man  therefore 
judge  you  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  an 
holy  day,  or  of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the  sabbath 
days  :  which  are  a  shadoAV  of  things  to  come  ;  but 
the  body  is  of  Christ."  Col.  2  :  14,  16,  17.  Novv^ 
be  it  remembered  that  he  affirms  that  these  scrip- 
tures teach  the  abolition  of  the  creation  Sabbath  ; 
also,  that,  while  we  concede  the  point  that  there 
are  here  mentioned  sabbaths  which  were  abol- 
ished at  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  we  deny  that 
the  seventh-day  Sabbath  was  among  them,  and 
insist  that  they  were  simply  the  ceremonial  sab- 
baths of  the  Jews  to  wliich  reference  is  made. 

In  proof  of  our  position,  we  ofter  the  fol- 
lowing considerations  :  1.  That  which  was  re- 
pealed is  represented  as  having  been  "blotted 
out."  Now  the  Scriptures  are  remarkable  for 
the  force  and  propriety  of  the  illustrations  which 
the}^  employ.     But  who  will  say  that  the  terms 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  127 

"blotting  out"  could  properly  be  applied  to 
writinof  enorraved  in  stone,  as  was  the  Sabbath 
law  in  its  original  copy  ?  2.  That  which  was 
blotted  out  was  the  ''  handwriting  of  ordinances ;" 
but  the  commandments  were  the  finger- writing 
of  God.  3.  That  which  was  blotted  out  was 
found  among  ordinances  that  were  "  against  us, 
and  contrary  to  us."  But  Jesus  says,  "  The 
Sabbath  was  made  for  man."  Mark  2  :  27,  28. 
4.  That  which  was  blotted  out  and  taken  out  of 
the  way  "  was  nailed  to  his  cross."  But  it  is  in- 
conceivable that  such  language  could  be  spoken 
of  the  tables  of  stone,  since  they  are  not  of  a 
nature  such  that  the  work  spoken  of  could  be 
readily  accomplished,  and  therefore  the  figure 
will  not  apply  to  them  except  when  forced.  5. 
It  must  be  admitted  that  these  thinojs  concernino- 
which  we  are  not  to  allow  men  to  judge  us  were 
either  all  of  them  shadows  of  Christ,  or  that  if 
the  others  were  not,  the  sahhath  days  were.  If 
they  were  all  shadows,  then  the  sabbaths  unde- 
niably were  such  ;  for  the  expression,  "  which 
were  a  shadow  of  things  to  come,"  stands  imme- 
diately connected  with  the  term  "  sabbatli  da.ys." 
But  this  decides  the  point  in  controversy ; 
for  our  friend  has  already  voluntarily  declared 
that  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  originated  in 
Eden.  This  being  true,  it  cannot  be  regarded  as 
a  "  shadov/  "  or  type  of  Christ,  since  it  was  in 
being  before  man  had  ever  fallen,  and,  conse- 
quently, before  a   Saviour  was   either  needed  or 


128  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

promised.  It  is  commemorative  in  its  cliaracter, 
and  was  calculated  to  carry  the  mind  back  to  the 
creation,  to  the  rest  of  Jehovah,  rather  than  for- 
vrard  to  the  crucifixion  of  his  Son.  Do  you  in- 
quire, then,  what  sabbaths  the  apostle  had  in 
view  ?  We  answer :  He  locates  them  among 
"  commandments  written  in  ordinances."  In 
other  words,  in  the  Mosaic  ceremonies.  Now 
take  your  Bible  and  turn  to  the  twenty-third 
chapter  of  Leviticus,  and  you  will  find  that  the 
Jews  had  three  annual  feasts — the  passover,  the 
Pentecost,  and  the  feast  of  tabernacles — besides 
the  new  moons,  and  the  seven  annual  sabbaths. 
The  sabbaths  were  as  follows,  to  wit. :  1.  The 
first  day  of  unleavened  bread.  2.  The  seventh 
day  of  that  feast.  3.  The  day  of  Pentecost.  4. 
The  first  day  of  the  seventh  month.  5.  The 
tenth  day  of  that  month.  6.  The  fifteenth  day 
of  that  month.  7.  The  twenty-second  day  of 
the  same.  These  are  the  ones,  beyond  all  ques- 
tion, to  which  reference  is  here  made.*  1.  Be- 
cause they  were  in  the  handwriting  of  Moses, 
and  could  be  blotted  out.  2.  Because  they  were 
found  in  handwriting  of  ordinances.  3.  They 
were  among  ceremonies  that  were  against  us,  and 
contrary  to  us  (Acts  15 :  10).  4.  The  law  in 
which  they  originated  might  liave  been  nailed  to 

*"It  is  not  clear  that  tbe  apostle  refers  at  all  to  the  Sabbath  in 
this  place  [Col.  2:16],  whether  Jewish  or  Christian;  his  cra/?- 
,3nT0)i>,  of  sabbaths,  or  weeks,  most  probablj'  refers  to  their  feasts 
of  weeks." — A.  CiarJre,  in.  loco. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABCATII.  129 

the  cross.    5.  That  law  was  also  one  which  shad- 
owed forth  Christ  (Heb.  10  : 1). 

To  the  second  text  we  shall  give  but  little 
space.  In  the  presentation  of  it,  our  friend  at- 
tempts to  be  facetious.  Nor  are  we  disposed  to 
find  fault  with  him  for  this.  It  is  sometimes  ad- 
missible, even  in  the  discussion  of  the  gravest 
questions,  to  indulge  in  harmless  humor.  That 
the  effort  in  question  partakes  of  this  cJtaracter, 
i.  e.,  that  it  is  harmless,  we  shall  not  dispute. 
At  all  events,  when  we  read  it,  it  amused  rather 
than  offended  us.  A  second  thought,  however, 
suggests  the  possibility  that  if  u'e  were  not  dam- 
aged by  the  sally,  it  might  have  been  iievnicious, 
nevertheless,  since  it  is  possible  for  it  to  react 
upon  its  author.  Certain  it  is,  that  it  will  dam- 
age either  him  or  Paul,  because  he  represents  the 
great  apostle  as  making  a  special  effort,  in  his 
general  labors,  to  teach  men  that  they  must  un- 
der all  circumstances  keep  one  day  holy,  and 
that  under  some  they  might  be  allowed  to  regard 
a  second  also  in  the  same  light.  But,  unfortu- 
nately, if  this  exegesis  is  correct,  and  if  the  lan- 
guage of  Rom.  14  :  5,  applies  to  the  weekly  Sab- 
bath at  all,  Paul  blundered  egregiously  in  com- 
municating his  intentions  ;  since  he  virtually  told 
those  whom  he  was  addressing  that,  of  the  days 
of  which  he  v:as  speaking,  they  need  not  keep 
them  at  all,  or  they  migld,  at  will.  Here  follows 
the  text :  ''One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  an- 

C^n.  Am.  9  B 


130  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

other :  another  esteemeth  every  day  aUke.  Let 
every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind." 

Now  we  have  heard  men  v/ho  believed  in  no 
Sabbath  employ  this  text  again  and  again  to 
prove  that  there  is  now  no  holy  time  ;  we  have 
also  heard  conscientious  lirst-day  observers  argue 
forcibly  and  conclusively  that  this  text  proved 
no  such  thing,  simply  because  it  referred  to  dsiys 
that  were  connected  with  meats  and  drinks,  and 
not  to  the  weekly  Sabbath  at  all.  But  we  con- 
fess that  the  position  of  our  friend  is  somewhat 
novel.  Nevertheless,  we  feel  sure  that  the  repu- 
tation of  the  great  apostle  for  perspicuity  will 
not  suffer  by  this  attempt,  and  we  think  that,  so 
far  as  he  is  concerned  himself,  reflection  will  pre- 
vent him  from  ever  seriously  urging  it.  In  con- 
clusion on  this  point,  we  append  a  brief  comment 
from  the  pen  of  Adam  Clarke,  whose  reputation, 
and  the  fact  that  he  was  an  observer  of  Sunday, 
will  give  him  no  little  authority  with  our  oppo- 
nent. He  says :  "  Reference  is  here  made  to  the 
Jewish  institutions,  and  especially  their  festivals ; 
such  as  the  passover,  pentecost,  feast  of  taberna- 
cles, new  moons,  jubilee,  &;c.  The  converted  Jeiu 
still  thought  these  of  moral  obligation ;  the  Gen- 
tile Christian,  not  having  been  bred  up  in  this 
way,  had  no  such  prejudices." — Com.  in  loco. 

The  only  remaining  text  cited  is  that  of  Gal. 
4  :  10.  After  what  has  been  said,  no  further 
comment  from  us  will  be  required.  The  reader, 
desirous  of  satisfying  himself  that  this  text  also 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  131 

has  no  reference  to  the  weekly  Sabbath,  and  of 
necessity  refers  either  to  heathen  festivals  or 
Jewish  ceremonial  clays,  can  read  the  context, 
and  consult  standard  authorities,  such  as  Clarke 
or  Barnes.* 

Let  us  now  survey  the  ground  over  which  we 
have  passed.  So  far  as  we  have  gone,  what  has 
been  done  toward  proving  a  practice  of  first-day 
observance  on  the  part  of  the  early  church  ? 
We  answer.  Nothing,  absolutely  nothing.  The 
only  texts  which  have  been  cited  for  this  pur- 
pose are  1  Cor.  16:2,  Rev.  1:10,  and  Acts  20 : 
7.  So  far  as  they  are  concerned,  we  have  previ- 
ously shown  that  the  first  of  them  does  not  in 
any  way  afiecfc  the  question  of  Sunday  observ- 
ance ;  that  the  second  relates  to  the  seventh  day 
of  the  week  and  not  to  the  first ;  and  that  the 
third  proves  that  Paul  traveled  nineteen  and  one- 
half  miles  on  the  Sunday.  When  our  reviewer 
shall  attempt  to  stir  a  single  stone  in  the  struct- 
ure of  argument  which  we  reared  in  our  former 
articles  on  these  points,  we  shall  be  by  his  side,  to 
see  that  he  does  it  fairly.  Until  then,  the  intelli- 
gent reader  need  not  be  told  that  it  is  vain  for  him 
to  try  to  make  capital  by  quoting  them  as  above. 

Thus  much  for  the  first  day.     We  inquire  next, 

***The  days  here  referred  to  are  doubtless  the  days  of  the  Jew- 
ish festivals.  *  *  *  *  It  is  not  a  fair  interpretation  of  this  to 
suppose  that  the  apostle  refers  to  the  Sabbath,  properly  so  called, 
for  this  was  a  part  of  the  decalogue,  and  was  observed  by  the 
Saviour  himself,  and  by  the  apostles  also.  It  is  a  fair  interpreta- 
tion to  apply  it  to  all  those  days  which  are  not  commanded  to  be 
kept  holy  in  the  Scriptures." —  A.  Barnes,  in  loco. 


132  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

What  has  been  conceded  or  proved,  which  is  fa- 
vorable to  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  ?  1.  That 
it  originated  in  Eden.  2.  That  it  was  enforced 
by  the  fourth  commandment.  3.  That  that  com- 
mandment is  still  binding.  4.  That  the  effort  to 
show  a  change  in  its  phraseology  from  Col.  2 : 
16,  Rom.  14:5,  and  Gal.  4 :  10,  was  a  complete 
failure ;  and  therefore  that  it  reads  as  it  did  for- 
merly, that  "  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of 
the  Lord."  5.  That  there  is  a  Sabbath  in  this 
dispensation.  6.  That,  being  enforced  by  posi- 
tive command,  it  stands  in  need  of  no  precedent. 
7.  That,  while  the  apostles  did  many  times  preach 
on  that  day,  there  is  not  one  instance  in  which 
they  violated  it.  8.  That  had  they  desecrated 
it,  the  conflicts  which  would  have  been  thus  cre- 
ated, must  have  found  a  place  in  the  history  of 
those  times.  9.  That  in  the  book  of  Acts  it  is 
always  called  "  the  Sabbath."  10.  That  it  was 
the  only  Sabbath  known  to  the  apostles,  since 
they  speak  of  it  not  only  as  "  the  Sabbath,"  but 
as  "the  next  Sabbath,"  and  "every  Sabbath." 

In  concluding,  we  suggest  that  we  leave  our 
reviewer  in  a  situation  which,  to  a  man  of  his 
clearness  of  perception,  must  be  a  very  unsatis- 
factory one.  Having  insisted  upon  the  perpetu- 
ity of  the  fourth  commandment,  he  is  compelled 
to  take  one  of  two  positions.  Either,  1.  That  it 
reads  the  same  as  it  did  when  it  enforced  the 
seventh  day  ;  or,  2.  That  its  phraseology  has  been 
changed.     We  confess  that  we  have  been  unable 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SAP.BATII.  133 

to  decide  Avliich  of  these  positions  he  prefers. 
Nor  is  it  material  here.  If  he  adopts  the  first,  the 
thouorhtfal  reader  will  ao^ree  with  me  that  it  is 
simply  absurd  to  argue  that  a  statute,  while 
reading  the  same,  means  differently  from  what  it 
did  formerly.  On  the  other  hand,  should  he 
adopt  the  latter,  then  we  inquire  why  he  has  not 
given  it  to  us  as  it  reads  since  it  has  been 
changed,  and  thus  ended  the  controversy  by 
gratifying  our  most  reasonable  request. 


STATESMAN'S   KEPLY. 


JLI^TICXjE     thi^ee. 


TESTIMONY   FROM   THE   GOSPELS   FOR   THE 
FIRST-DAY   SABBATH. 

In  a  previous  article  it  was  seen  that  from  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  there  is  no  instance  recorded 
in  Scripture  of  the  observance  of  the  seventh  day 
as  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  by  any  assembly  of 
Christians.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  seen  that 
the  Judaizing  spirit,  which  in  some  instances  in- 
sisted on  such  observance  by  Christians,  was  re- 
buked by  the  inspired  apostle.  In  connection 
with  this  was  noted  the  fact  that  in  the  case  of 
Jews  converted  to  Christianity,  yet  inclined  still 
to  regard  the  seventh  day  with  other  Jewish  cel- 
ebrations, Christians  were  directed  to  bear  with 
such  observance  as  a  weakness  in  their  brethren. 
It  was  also  seen  that  while  the  observance  of  the 
seventh  day  was  not  continued,  another  day  of 


184:  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

the  week,  the  first,  took  its  place  as  the  stated 
day  for  religious  assemblies  and  services.  Let  us 
now  examine  the  testimony  from  the  Gospels  for 
this  day,  reserving  the  remainder  of  scriptural 
proof  for  another  article. 

The  manner  in  which  the  first  day  of  the  week 
is  pointed  out  in  the  Gospels  as  the  day  of  the 
Lord's  resurrection,  is  itself  striking  and  signifi- 
cant. All  four  of  the  evangelists  concur  in  mak- 
ing prominent  the  fact  that  it  v/as  on  this  day 
that  Christ  rose  from  the  dead.  This  fact  is 
stated  by  Matthew,  28  : 1-6  ;  twice  by  Mark,  16  : 
1-6,  and  again  in  verse  9  ;  by  Luke,  24 : 1-6  ;  by 
John,  20  :  1,  2.  This  concurrent,  particular  men- 
tion of  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  day  of 
the  resurrection,  in  four  independent  historical 
accounts,  the  earliest  of  which  was  written  prob- 
ably about  twenty  years  after  that  event,  has  a 
significance  readily  overlooked,  but  well  worth 
noting. 

To  appreciate  this  fully,  we  must  distinguish 
between  the  '  words  of  the  historians  and  the 
words  of  the  persons  whose  sayings  the}^  record — 
a  most  important  point  in  the  study  of  any  his- 
tory. Observing  this  distinction,  then,  we  note 
that  the  promise  of  Christ,  as  recorded  by  the 
historians,  was,  that  he  would  rise  from  the  dead 
on  the  third  day,  dating  from  and  including  the 
day  of  his  crucifixion  and  burial.  The  chief 
priests  and  Pharisees,  asking  Pilate  to  have  the 
sepulcher  guarded ;  the  angels  at  the  sepulcher 
the  morning  of  the  resurrection ;  the  two  disci- 
ples, conversing  with  the  risen  Lord  on  the  way 
to  Emmaus.  and  the  Lord  himself,  speak  of  it  as 
the  third  day.  In  no  other  way  does  any  one 
whose  language  is  recorded  by  the  historians  re- 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  135 

fer  to  the  day  of  the  resiuTection.  Now,  had  the 
historians  themselves,  writing  after  an  interval  of 
from  nearly  twenty  to  over  sixty  years,  simply 
desired  to  state  the  fact  of  the  Lord's  resurrec- 
tion, it  would  have  been  sufficient  for  them  to 
say  that,  according  to  His  promise,  he  rose  on 
the  third  day.  But  instead  of  this,  they  all  con- 
cur in  pointing  out  particularly  the  first  day  of 
the  week  as  the  resurrection  day.  On  the  sup- 
position that,  when  the  historians  wrote,  the  first 
day  was  regarded  precisely  like  the  second  and 
third  days  of  the  week,  as  it  was  at  the  time  of 
the  resurrection,  this  change  of  statement  is  sin- 
gular and  inexpKcable.  On  the  other  hand,  on 
the  supposition  that  the  first  day  had  become  an 
honored  and  noted  day  among  Christians,  this 
mention  of  it  by  all  the  evangelists,  and  that,  too, 
in  a  uniform  and  somewhat  formal  phrase,  and 
the  difference  between  the  langjuac^e  of  the  his- 
torians  and  that  of  the  persons  of  whom  they 
write,  are  naturally  and  satisfactorily  explained. 
In  this  change  of  language,  then,  on  the  part  of 
the  insi)ired  historians,  and  in  their  concurrent 
and  prominent  mention  of  the  first  day,  we  have 
strong  presumptive  evidence  in  favor  of  the 
marked  character  of  that  day  at  the  time  when 
the  Gospel  histories  were  written.  Testimony  of 
this  kind,  in  the  form  of  unstudied  allusion  or  un- 
designed coincidence,  though  easily  passed  with- 
out notice,  is  acknowledo-ed  on  all  hands  to  be  of 
great  weight. 

After  showing  himself  probably  four  times  to 
one  or  more  of  his  disciples  during  the  day  of  his 
resurrection,  Christ  appeared  late  in  the  evening 
to  the  disciples  collectively,  Thomas  alone  being 
absent.     "  Then  the  same  day  at  evening  (opsia, 


13G  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

late  evening,  from  opse,  late),  being  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  when  the  doors  were  shut  where 
the  disciples  were  assembled  for  fear  of  the  Jews, 
came  Jesus  and  stood  in  the  midst,  and  saith  unto 
them,  Peace  be  unto  you."  (John  20  :  19.)  Let 
the  facts  be  noted.  1.  It  was  the  evening  of  the 
first  day  of  the  week.  2.  The  disciples  were  met 
together,  manifestly,  not  to  commemorate  the 
resurrection,  but  for  what  purpose,  or  where,  it 
does  not  matter.  3.  The  Lord*  came  and  blessed 
them,  and,  as  we  learn  from  the  following  verses, 
imparted  to  them  spiritual  instruction,  and 
breathed  on  them  the  Holy  Ghost.  These  facts 
should  be  borne  in  mind  as  we  proceed. 

We  come  now  to  the  record  of  the  first  day  of 
the  following  week  :  "And  after  eight  days  again 
his  disciples  were  within,  and  Thomas  with  them. 
Then  came  Jesus,  the  doors  being  shut,  and  stood 
in  the  midst,  and  said,  Peace  be  unto  you." 
(John  20  :  26.)  This  interval  of  eight  days,  from 
and  including  the  resurrection  day,  brings  us,  ac- 
cordinoc  to  the  common  mode  of  reckoningr,  and 
as  no  one  is  disposed  to  dispute,  to  the  first  day 
of  the  next  week.  The  preceding  first  day,  the 
disciples  were  met  collectively.  Again,  this  first 
day,  they  are  met,  and  Thomas  with  them.  It 
has  been  said  that  very  probably  the  disciples 
met  every  day  during  the  interval,  and,  therefore, 
they  put  no  special  honor  upon  the  first  day. 
But  the  question  is  not  just  here  whether  the 
disciples  meant  to  honor  the  first  day  or  not. 
Did  the  Lord  himself  single  it  out  from  the  days 
of  the  week  and  honor  it  ?  This  is  the  question 
at  present.  It  may  be  admitted  that  the  disci- 
ples met  every  day  during  the  interval.  This  is 
exceedingly   probable.     The   fact   remains  clear 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABIJATII.  137 

that  the  Lord  did  not  meet  Avith  them.  And 
this  very  passing  by  of  these  supposed  meetings 
of  the  disciples  by  the  Lord,  during  six  days,  the 
last  of  which  was  the  seventh-day  Sabbath,  ren- 
ders his  actual  meeting  witli  them,  as  recorded, 
on  the  tirst  day  again,  all  the  more  significant. 
The  disciples  may  not  have  designed  to  honor 
the  day,  but  the  Lord  himself,  passing  by  the 
seventh  day  along  with  the  other  five  interven- 
ing, selects  and  honors  the  first  day  by  once 
more  meeting  on  it  with  his  disciples. 

Nor  is  it  to  be  admitted  that  the  disciples  were 
destitute  of  all  regaixl  to  the  returning  first  day  of 
the  week  as  the  day  of  the  Lord's  resurrection. 
The  very  circumstances  in  which,  by  the  ordering 
of  the  Master,  they  were  placed,  could  not  fail  to 
teach  them  to  look  upon  it  with  special  regard. 
They  had  been  assembled  on  the  evening  of  the 
preceding  first  day.  The  Lord  had  met  with 
them  and  blessed  them,  and  breathed  on  them 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Earnestly  longing  to  enjoy  his 
comforting  and  cheering  presence  again,  we  may 
suppose  they  met  on  the  second  da}^.  But  the 
Lord  does  not  come.  More  deeply  feeling  their 
need,  they  assemble  again  the  third  day.  Still 
the  desired  presence  is  withheld.  So  on,  with 
ever-increasing  desires,  they  meet,  day  after  day. 
How  natural  would  it  be  for  them  to  think  of  the 
seventh  day,  on  which  tliey  had  so  often  enjoyed 
sw^eet  counsel  with  the  Master,  going  to  the  house 
of  God.  "  Surely,"  their  thought  might  well  be, 
"  He  will  meet  with  us  in  our  assembly  to-day." 
But  no.  The  time  for  the  special  manifestation 
of  himself  to  his  worshiping  disciples  in  their 
collective  gathering  had  not  come.  Would  not 
the   disciples  then  remember,  if  they  had  ever 


138  COXSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

forgotten  it,  that  it  was  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week  the  Lord  rose  from  the  dead,  and  on  that 
day  he  had  stood  in  tlie  midst  of  them  and  said, 
Peace  be  unto  you  ?  And  remembering  this, 
they  would  meet  on  the  return  of  the  first  day 
with  earnest  expectation  of  the  return  of  the 
Master.  Nor  are  they  disappointed.  Once  more 
he  comes,  and  stands  in  the  midst,  and  grants  his 
benediction. 

Here  then  are  the  facts  concerning  sacred  time, 
as  recorded  in  the  Gospel  history,  subsequent  to 
the  resurrection  of  Christ.  The  seventh  day  is 
not  mentioned.  If  the  disciples  met  on  that  day, 
as  they  probably  did,  the  inspired  penmen  take 
no  notice  of  the  fact.  There  is  no  meeting  of  the 
risen  Lord  with  his  disciples.  The  seventh  day 
is  passed  by.  On  the  other  hand,  the  first  day  is 
mentioned  in  a  particular  manner,  in  changed  and 
special  language,  by  all  the  evangelists,  as  a  noted 
day  would  naturally  be  mentioned  and  marked 
out  as  the  resurrection  day.  On  it  the  Lord  re- 
peatedly met  with  his  disciples,  blessed  them, 
taught  them  important  spiritual  lessons,  and 
breathed  on  them  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  earnest  of 
the  abundant  outpouring  of  the  Spirit.  How 
full  of  meaning  these  facts  !  On  tlie  last  seventh 
day  on  which  the  disciples  rested  according  to 
the  commandment,  the  Lord  himself  is  lying  in 
the  tomb.  The  glory  of  the  seventh  day  dies 
out  with  the  fading  light  of  that  day  throughout 
the  whole  of  which  the  grave  claimed  tlie  body 
of  the  Redeemer.  But  the  glory  of  the  Sabbath 
of  the  Lord  survives.  It  receives  fresh  luster 
from  the  added  glories  of  the  Lord  of  the  Sab- 
bath. "  The  stone  which  the  builders  refused  is 
become  the  head-stone  of  the  corner."     It  is  very 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  139 

early  in  the  morning  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
Again  God  said,  Let  there  be  light,  and  there  was 
light.  The  Sun  of  righteousness  has  risen  with 
healing  in  his  wings.  This  is  the  day  which  the 
Lord  hath  made  ;  we  will  rejoice  and  be  glad  in 
it.  The  first  day  of  the  week  has  become  the 
Lord's  day. 


A    HEJOINI3ER. 


''  TESTIJIONY   FROM  THE   GOSPELS  FOR   THE   FIRST- 
DAY   SABBATH." 

Without  prolonged  preliminary  remarks,  we 
shall  endeavor  to  consider  the  points  of  argu- 
ment presented  by  our  reviewer  in  the  article 
entitled,  "Testimony  from  the  Gospels  for  the 
first-day  Sabbath."  In  entering  upon  our  task, 
we  feel  almost  as  if  we  were  doing  a  work  of 
supererogation,  from  the  fact  that  what  we  arc 
called  upon  to  answer  is  so  far  from  being  a  ref- 
utation of  what  we  had  said  in  our  positive  ar- 
gument, that  it  appears  to  be  little  more  than  a 
re-statement  of  positions  which  we  believe  we 
have  once  fairly  met  and  conclusively  answered. 
Nevertheless,  w^e  express  our  satisfaction  at  the 
concessions  apparently  made  by  the  writer.  The 
common  plea  that  the  disciples  were  assembled 
on  the  day  of  the  resurrection  in  order  to  honor 
the  resuscitation  of  the  body  of  Christ,  is  seem- 
ingly ignored.     The  points  now  urged  seem  to 


140  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

be  those  of  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  Lord 
himself  to  honor  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and 
of  such  a  use  of  language  on  the  part  of  the  his- 
torians as  it  would  be  natural  for  them  to  make, 
provided  it  had  become  a  settled  thing  with  them 
to  regard  the  Sunday  as  a  day  which  Christ  had 
set  apart  for  holy  uses. 

So  far  as  it  regards  the  position  assumed,  that 
there  is  peculiar  significance  in  the  manner  in 
Avhich  the  first  day  is  pointed  out,  with  it  we  are 
ready  most  heartily  to  agree.  But  so  far  as  the 
assertion  is  concerned,  that,  in  the  manner  of 
the  pointing  out,  there  is  found  strong  presump- 
tive evidence  that  they  design  to  teach  succeeding 
generations  that  they  looked  upon  the  first  day 
of  the  v>^eek  as  holy  time,  we  can  by  no  means 
admit  that  it  is  correct.  On  the  contrary,  we 
believe  that  their  language  establishes,  beyond 
controversy,  the  opposite  position.  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  were  blunt,  straightfor- 
ward, direct  men  in  all  that  they  said.  They 
had  nothing  to  disguise,  nor  could  anything  be 
gained  by  indirection  in  statement. 

Furthermore,  every  motive  of  esteem  for 
Christ,  as  well  as  that  which  would  actuate  them 
in  their  desire  to  instruct  subsequent  generations 
in  regard  to  the  estimation  in  which  they  should 
hold  the  day  of  Christ's  resurrection,  demanded 
that  their  language  should  be  full  and  explicit, 
and  that  it  should  state,  in  so  many  words,  that 
it  was  sacred  to  holy  uses.     But  have  they  done 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  141 

this  ?  No  ;  the  gentleman  does  not  so  much  as 
urge  that  they  have.  All  his  emphasis  is  placed 
upon  the  fact  that,  in  speaking  of  it,  they  call  it 
the  "first  day  of  the  week,"  instead  of  the  "third 
after  his  crucifixion."  He  may  well  say  that  the 
distinction  between  these  two  forms  of  expres- 
sion Yv^ould  be  readily  "  passed  over."  Has  it 
come  to  this,  then,  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  en- 
forcing important  duties  upon  Christians,  is  com- 
pelled to  depart  from  the  natural,  clear,  and  pos- 
itive statement  of  facts,  and  to  employ  polemical 
niceties  which,  we  believe,  if  they  have  any  force 
at  all,  can  only  be  discerned  by  minds  whose  sus- 
ceptibilities for  refinement  are  infinitely  superior 
to  those  of  common  men  and  women,  and  the 
poor  and  ignorant  to  whom  the  gospel  was 
preached. 

If  the  Sunday  had  become  the  "Christian 
Sahhath,"  why  not  say  so  ?  If,  indeed,  it  was  on 
the  "  Lord's  day  "  that  Jesus  arose,  why  was  not 
this  asserted  ?  Or,  if  the  first  day  of  the 
week  was  regarded  as  the  Christian  Sabbath, 
why  such  a  studied  avoidance  of  the  application 
of  this  term  to  that  day  ?  Will  the  gentleman 
insist  that  if  the  evangelists  had  stated,  in  so 
many  words,  that  the  Lord  appeared  among  them 
after  his  resurrection  on  the  first  "  Lord's  day," 
or  the  first  "  Christian  Sahhath,"  that  it  would 
not  have  been  just  what  the  facts  would  have 
warranted,  if  his  theory  be  correct,  and  that 
thereby  all  dispute,  as  to  which  day  is  the  Lord's 


142  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

da}^,  or  Christian  Sabbath,  would  have  been  for- 
ever terminated  ?  Then  why  endeavor  to  im- 
press the  reader  witli  the  thought  tliat  there  is 
really  any  peculiar  significance  in  the  form  of 
expression  employed,  or  that  it  furnishes  a  strong 
presumptive  argument  in  favor  of  first-day  sanc- 
tity ? 

The  language  of  the  historians  is  just  that  which 
men  would  use  when  speaking  of  a  secular  day,  and 
not  that  which  they  would  naturally  employ  when 
alluding  to  a  consecrated  one.  The  expression, 
"  first  day  of  the  week,"  was  not  only  the  briefer 
— as  compared  to  the  other,  that  is,  the  "  third 
day  after  the  crucifixion  " — but  was  definite  in 
every  particular.  Once  more,  therefore,  we  in- 
sist that  the  fact  that  the  inspired  evangelists 
persisted,  twenty  years  after  the  occurrence 
of  the  events  recorded,  in  calling  the  Sunday 
"the  first  day  of  the  week  " — as  they  have  done 
in  the  six  times  in  which  they  have  mentioned 
it — if  guided  at  all  in  the  selection  of  this  term 
by  the  usage  and  opinions  of  the  times  in  which 
they  wrote,  have  furnished  us  with  a  comment- 
ary which,  if  it  proves  anything  at  all,  proves 
that  the  day  now  regarded  as  holy  was  not  so 
esteemed  at  that  time  by  the  disciples  generally, 
else  those  among  them  who,  as  historians,  would 
have  been  glad  to  have  conferred  upon  it  this 
honor,  would  have  referred  to  it  in  the  use  of  its 
sacred  title,  "  Sabbath,"  or  the  "  Lord's  day." 

As  it  regards  the  design  of  Christ,  we  take  is- 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SABBATH.  143 

sue  vritli  our  friend,  and  offer  the  following  rea- 
sons for  our  confident  assertion  that  he  is  wrong  : 

1.  His  conclusion  is  not  one  which  is  either  nec- 
essary or  obvious.  God  has  shown  us  his  method 
of  making  a  holy  day.  That  method  he  has  set 
forth  in  clear  and  positive  statement,  and  the  ob- 
servance of  such  a  day  he  has  enforced  by  ex- 
plicit command.  This  being  the  case,  we  must 
infer  that  he  chose  that  manner  because  it  was 
the  best.  Hence  we  should  naturally  conclude 
that  when  he  wished  to  change  the  day  of  his 
choice,  once  enforced  by  a  law  still  binding,  he 
would  make  known  his  mind  in  a  manner  so 
clear  and  impressive  that  there  could  be  no  room 
for  doubt.  This,  however,  in  the  action  of  Christ 
alluded  to,  is  far  from  being  the  case,  because  the 
meeting  of  the  Lord  v/ith  the  apostles  did  not 
necessarily  affect  the  nature  of  the  time  on 
which  it  occurred.  Instance  the  fact  heretofore 
cited,  that  he  met  with  them  on  a  fishing  day 
(John  chap.  21),  and  again  on  Thursday,  the  day 
of  the  ascension,  without  in  any  way  changing  the 
character  of  those  days,  as  all  will  admit.  Now, 
if  this  could  be  true  of  those  two  days,  might  it 
not  also  be  true  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  ? 

2.  Because,  as  v/e  have  seen,  there  is  not  the 
slightest  evidence  that  the  apostles  inferred  that 
it  was  the  intention  of  Christ  to  produce  the  im- 
pression claimed.  For,  had  this  been  the  case, 
their  convictions  must  have  found  expression  for 
our  benefit.     3.  Because,  manifestly,  the  conver- 


144  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

sation  of  Christ  is  given,  so  far  as  it  inculcated 
any  duty  not  elsewhere  expressed;  and  in  his 
words  there  is  no  allusion  to  any  design  on  his 
part  to  teach  them  that  the  time  on  which  they 
were  assembled  was  holy.  4.  Because  there  is  a 
sufficient  reason  found  for  the  meeting  of  Christ 
wdth  the  apostles  on  these  two  occasions,  in  his 
desire  to  establish  them  in  the  conviction  of  his 
resurrection,  and  to  instruct  them  in  regard  to 
future  action. 

Before  passing  from  this  branch  of  the  subject, 
we  must  be  allowed  to  express  our  surprise  that, 
in  the  anxiety  of  our  friend  to  make  out  his  case, 
he  has  made  a  declaration  which  we  think  he 
would  not  have  done  had  he  been  more  deliber- 
ate in  his  selection  of  facts.  He  says,  in  speak- 
ing of  John  20  :  26 — the  second  and  only  addi- 
tional instance  in  which,  after  the  first,  he  claims 
that  Christ  met  with  the  apostles  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week — as  follows  :  "  This  interval  of 
eight  days,  from  and  including  the  resurrection 
day,  brings  us,  according  to  the  common  mode  of 
reckoning,  and  as  no  one  is  disposed  to  dispute, 
to  the  first  day  of  the  next  w^eek."  To  this  we 
reply  that,  if  he  means  to  be  understood,  by  this 
statement,  that  there  is  no  dispute  as  to  whether 
the  second  gathering  under  consideration  did  oc- 
cur just  one  week  after  the  first,  he  mistakes 
greatly.  It  is  by  no  means  true  that  this  is  a 
matter  about  which  there  is  no  dificrence  of  opin- 


SUNDAY    AND   THE    SABBATH.  145 

ion.  In  order  to  show  the  reader  that  we  are 
right  in  this,  we  quote  the  folloAving  from  many 
testimonies  which  might  be  introduced :  " '  After 
eight  days  '  from  this  meeting,  if  made  to  signify 
only  one  week,  necessarily  carries  us  to  the  sec- 
ond day  of  the  week.  But  a  different  expression 
is  used  by  the  Spirit  of  inspiration  when  simply 
one  AYeek  is  intended.  '  After  seven  days,'  is  the 
chosen  term  of  the  Holy  Spirit  when  designating 
just  one  week.  'After  eight  days,'  most  natu- 
rally implies  the  ninth  or  tenth  day ;  but  allow- 
ing it  to  mean  the  eighth  day,  it  fails  to  prove 
that  this  appearance  of  the  Saviour  was  upon 
the  first  day  of  the  week."  In  a  note  on  the 
above  remarks,  the  same  author  says  :  "  Those 
who  were  to  come  before  God  from  Sabbath  to 
Sabbath  to  minister  in  his  temple,  were  said  to 
come  'after  seven  days.'  1  Chron.  9  :  25;  2  Kings 
11  :  5." — Hist,  of  Sabbath,  by  J.  JS^.  Andrews,  p. 
148. 

Eight  here,  also,  is  the  proper  place  to  give  at- 
tention to  the  elaborate  argument  which  is  made 
to  produce  upon  the  mind  of  the  reader  the  im- 
pression that  the  presence  of  Christ,  in  the  two 
instances  mentioned,  was  expressly  designed  for 
the  purpose  of  distinguishing  the  two  first-days 
(?)  upon  which  he  manifested  himself  to  his  dis- 
ciples. We  should  not  do  justice  to  our  opponent, 
should  we  refuse  to  grant  him  credit  for  making 
a  doubtful  circumstance  go  as  far  in  his  favor  as 

Con    Aiu.  10  B 


146  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT, 

it  were  possible  for  any  man  to  do.  What  he 
has  said  is  both  poetic  and  pathetic.  Poetic,  be- 
cause it  is  purely  a  figment  of  his  own  imagina- 
tion. Pathetic,  because  the  spectacle  here  brought 
to  view  is  one  which  appeals  most  forcibly  to  the 
sympathies  of  the  generous  reader.  Who  would 
not  commiserate  the  condition  of  men  who,  for 
six  weary  days,  sat  in  public  assembly,  waiting 
the  momentary  expected  advent  of  their  Lord  ? 
Who  would  not  rejoice  when  finally  he  appeared 
in  their  midst,  even  if  it  were  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week  ?  How  natural,  too,  it  would  be  for 
the  reader,  having  his  sympathies  thus  aroused, 
to  follow  him  who  has  shown  an  art,  at  least  dra- 
matic, in  playing  upon  their  feelings,  to  the  con- 
clusion to  which  he  springs — not  by  the  route  of 
logical  deduction — but  by  that  of  a  more  fascin- 
ating sentimentalism. 

But  before  he  does  this,  let  us  descend  for  a 
moment  from  the  hights  of  fancy  to  the  lower 
grounds  of  prosaic  fact.  It  strikes  us  that  the 
gentleman  will  discover  that  he  has  paid  too 
high  a  price  for  what  he  has  obtained.  Where 
did  he  learn  that  they  assembled  on  the  six  days 
in  question  ?  Assuredly  not  from  the  record,  for 
that  is  silent  upon  this  point.  Nay,  more ;  he 
does  not  himself  claim  that  he  has  any  written 
authority  for  it,  but  simply  says  that  he  "  be- 
lieves "  so  and  so,  and  then  proceeds  to  his  de- 
ductions.    Well,  with  this  understanding  of  the 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SADBATII.  147 

matter,  and  knowing  that  it  is  merely  an  infer- 
ence of  the  writer,  let  us  follow  his  conclusions 
to  their  legitimate  consequences.  Having  done 
this,  w^e  perceive,  1.  That  at  last  Ave  have  reached 
a  whole  week,  every  day  of  which  was  one  of  re- 
ligious meetings,  and  yet  not  one  word  recorded 
in  reg^ard  to  the  oratherings  which  occurred  on  six 
out  of  the  seven  days  of  the  week.  This  being 
true  by  his  own  concession,  what  has  become  of 
that  argument  in  which  he  indulged  so  largely  in 
his  effort  to  prove  that  because  there  was  no  ac- 
count of  a  meeting  of  Christians  on  the  Sabbath, 
they  were  consequently  not  in  the  habit  of  meet- 
ing on  that  day  ?  Does  it  not  fall  to  the  ground, 
utterly  emptied  of  all  its  force,  if  it  ever  had  any? 
2.  Where,  now,  is  his  oft-repeated  declaration  that 
there  is  no  account  of  the  meeting  of  any  of  the 
apostles  with  a  Christian  church  on  the  Sabbath, 
and  the  conclusion  therefrom,  that  they  therefore 
held  none  ?  Here  is  the  admission  of  the  writer 
himself,  that  the  apostles  and  the  church  at  Je- 
rusalem did  meet  on  at  least  one  seventh  day 
after  the  resurrection  of  Christ.  3.  What  has 
become  of  the  instructive  lesson  which  Christ  im- 
parted to  his  followers  on  the  evening  of  the  day 
of  his  resLirrection  ?  Has  it  not  been  insisted 
that  that  visit  was  made  for  the  especicd  purpose 
of  teaching  them,  by  example,  and  by  meeting 
with  them,  that  the  day  on  which  it  occurred 
was  holy  time  ?  If  we  have  rightly  apprehended 
the  logic  of  our  opponent,  this  was   the   precise 


148  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

moral  which  our  Lord  designed  to  convey  by  his 
manifestation  on  that  occasion.  How  clear  it  is 
that  such  a  conviction  has  rested  upon  the  mind 
of  the  writer,  and  how  often  he  has  repeated  it. 

But  how  was  it  with  the  apostles  ?  Now,  cer- 
tainly, they  were  not  onore  obtuse  than  ^ve  are. 
Assuredly,  they  knew  as  much  about  the  will 
and  purpose  of  Christ  in  meeting  with  them  the 
first  time,  as  we  do  now.  Did  tJiey  then  infer 
that  Christ  met  with  them  expressly  for  the  pur- 
pose, not  of  honoring  by  positive  precept,  but  by 
the  fact  of  his  assembling  with  them,  the  day  on 
which  that  assembly  occurred  ?  If  so,  why  should 
they,  according  to  the  view  we  are  considering, 
have  gathered  themselves  together  every  day  for 
the  whole  subsequent  week,  expecting  his  pres- 
ence ?  Would  they  not  have  discovered  that 
such  ^presence,  under  siic/^  circumstances,  would 
have  utterly  nullified  the  moral  lesson  of  the 
first  visit,  since  it  would  not  afterwards  be  true 
that  the  first  day  of  the  week  was  the  only  one 
which  he  had  thus  distinguished,  thereby  mark- 
ing it  out  from  the  rest  of  the  week  ? 

So  much  for  the  consequences  which  would 
necessarily  follow,  had  that  occurred  which  the 
writer  says  he  "  believes  "  took  place.  But,  for- 
tunately, or  unfortunately  for  him,  the  whole 
thing  is  a  myth  from  beginning  to  end.  The  only 
force  which  it  posseses  lies  in  the  assumed  fact 
that  it  brings  together  eight  meetings  on  consec- 
utive da3^s,  on  two  of  which,  and  two  onl}",  the 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SADDATII.  149 

Lord  met  with  his  followers,  those  two  being  first 
days  of  the  Aveeks  to  whicti  they  belonged.  There- 
fore, before  the  statement  can  possess  any  argu- 
mentative power,  we  must  first  grant  him  the 
privilege  of  assuming  that  six  of  these  meetings 
occurred  when  there  is  not  a  scintilla  of  evidence 
in  the  sacred  narrative  to  favor  his  view. 

That  must  be  a  desperate  cause  indeed  which 
compels  its  advocates  to  such  a  resort  to  make 
out  their  case.  Nevertheless,  if  the  conception 
has  accomplished  nothing  more,  it  has  furnished 
us  a  key  by  which  we  have  been  able  to  unlock 
the  secret  conviction  of  the  writer,  and  by  that 
means,  we  learn  that  he  does  not  himself  believe 
either  that  Christ  told  his  disciples  on  the  day 
of  the  resurrection  that  that  was  holy  time ;  or 
that  they  had  decided  in  tlteir  oivn  viinds  that 
his  visit  necessarily  pointed  out  this  fact ;  or  that 
the  meeting  of  a  Christian  church  on  a  secular 
day  proves  that  they  regarded  that  day  as  sacred ; 
or  that  it  is  necessary  to  suppose  that  any  church 
disregarded  the  Sabbath,  simply  because  there  is 
no  historic  mentio7i  of  their  observance  of  it. 
This  being  true,  we  hope  from  this  time  forward 
that  we  shall  see  a  line  of  argument  pursued 
which  will  be  consistent  with  the  admissions  in- 
advertently made  above. 

Finally — as  we  have  the  concession  of  the 
writer,  that  the  mention  of  the  term,  "  first  day 
of  the  week,"  in  the  texts  under  consideration, 
accorded  with  the  use  of  language  as  employed 


150  C0x\STITUT10NAL    AMENDMENT. 

twenty  years  after  the  crucilixion — let  us  glance 
at  bis  proof-texts  for  ourselves.  In  doing  so,  the 
reader  will  bear  in  mind  that  these  texts  furnish 
all  the  gospel  testimony  in  reference  to  the  sup- 
posed repudiation  of  God's  ancient  Sabbath  and 
the  substitution  of  a  new  one  in  its  place,  and 
also  that  the  terms  employed,  as  stated  above, 
were  used  with  reference  to  their  meaning  at  the 
time  they  were  penned. 

The  first  is  found  in  Matt.  28  : 1-6.  In  Matt. 
28  : 1,  the  apostle  says  :  "  In  the  end  of  the  Sab- 
bath, as  it  began  to  dawn  toward  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  came  Mary  Magdalene  and  the  other 
Mar}^  to  see  the  sepulcher."  Now  which  day,  in 
the  parlance  of  the  disciples  of  our  Lord,  twenty 
years  after  his  death,  was  styled  the  Sabbath  ? 
Which  was  mentioned  by  the  use  of  a  secular 
title,  whereas,  custom,  reason,  and  religion,  all 
warranted  and  would  have  seemed  to  demand  the 
application  to  it  of  a  religious  title,  such  as  Sab- 
bath, or  Lord's  day  ?  We  leave  the  reader  to  an- 
swer. 

The  next  scripture  is  found  in  Mark  16  :  1,  2. 
Here,  again,  the  same  distinction  is  preserved  be- 
tween the  holy  and  the  profane.  "When  the 
Sabbath  was  past,"  the  women  who  had  bought 
sweet  spices  came  to  the  sepulcher  very  early  in 
the  morning,  the  first  day  of  the  week.  The  next 
passage  is  in  verse  9  of  the  same  chapter,  where 
it  is  barely  stated  that  Jesus,  having  risen  on  the 
first   day   of  the   week,  appeared  first  to  Mary 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SACKATH.  IS"! 

Magdalene.  Did  the  historian,  Mark,  ruthlessly 
Avound  the  feelings  of  his  Christian  brethren,  by 
neglecting  two  splendid  opportunities  for  settling 
the  matter  of  a  change  of  days  for  all  future  gen- 
erations, or  did  he  not  believe  in  such  a  change  ? 
Which  view  is  the  more  consistent,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, with  the  manner  in  which  he  speaks  ? 
The  next  text  in  order,  with  the  context,  will 
be  found  in  Luke  23  :  54-56,  and  24  :  1.  Let  the 
reader  turn  to  these  passages  in  his  Bible  and  ex- 
amine them  carefully.  In  Luke  23  :  56,  it  is  stat- 
ed that  the  women  "  rested  the  Sabbath  day,  ac- 
cording to  the  commandment ;"  and  in  the  first 
verse  of  the  following  chapter,  it  is  said  that  "  up- 
on the  first  day  of  the  week,  very  early  in  the 
morning,  they  came  unto  the  sepulcher."  Here, 
again,  Luke — than  whom  there  is  no  sacred 
writer  who  uses  terms  more  frequently  with  ref- 
erence to  their  technical  meaning — furnishes 
us  a  comment  in  perfect  harmony  with  that  of 
the  others.  Mark  him  ;  he  is  very  specific.  He 
says  the  women  "  rested  the  Sabbath  day,  accord- 
ing to  the  commandment."  Observe,  it  is  not  the 
"  old  commandment,"  but  "  the  commandment." 
But  again.  What  day  was  it  upon  which  they 
rested  ?  It  was  the  Sabbath  day.  How  did  it 
stand  related  in  the  order  of  the  week  to  the 
first  day  ?  It  was  the  day  before  it.  Did  the 
women,  according  to  his  statement,  observe  the 
first  day  ?  No ;  for  they  came  to  do  that  upon 
it  which  they  would  not  do  on  the  Sabbath,  i.  e., 


152  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

to  embalm  the  body  of  Christ.  But  were  they 
deceived,  and  was  the  day  on  which  they  came 
to  the  tomb,  after  all,  sacred  to  the  Lord,  because 
of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  which  had  occurred 
early  in  the  morning  ?  Was  this  indeed  the 
Lord's  day,  the  Christian  Sabbath  ?  And  had 
the  old  Sabbath  expired  at  the  cross  (Col.  2:16) 
before  the  deluded  women  rested  upon  it  ?  Then 
we  inquire  again.  Why  should  an  inspired  apos- 
tle pass  by  unimproved  this  magnificent  oppor- 
tunity for  recognizing  the  new  order  of  things  by 
dropping  that  plain,  unpretending  "  first  day  o± 
the  week,"  and  stating  for  the  benefit  of  posterity 
that  the  day  on  which  the}^  repaired  to  the  sep- 
ulcher  was  the  Sabbath  of  the  commandment,  as 
changed  by  the  authority  of  Christ  ? 

The  remaining  passages  are  those  of  John  20 : 
1,  19.  Here,  once  more,  it  is  stated  that  "  the 
first  day  of  the  week  cometh  Mary  Magdalene 
early  to  the  sepulcher;"  and  also  in  the  19th 
verse,  that  Jesus  met  with  his  disciples  in  the 
evening  of  the  first  day  of  the  week.  In  these 
words,  John,  the  beloved  disciple,  like  all  before 
him,  alludes  to  the  day  as  though  it  were  a  com- 
mon one. 

Thus  we  have  seen  that  the  four  gospel  histo- 
rians all  unite  in  ignoring  the  sacred  title  of  Sun- 
day, if  it  had  any,  and  merely  designate  it  by 
its  proper  numeral ;  while  three  of  them  call  the 
seventh  day  the  Sabbath,  and  locate  it  in  the 
week  as  the  day  which  precedes  the  first. 


SUNDAY    AND    THK    SABBATH.  153 

Now  we  appeal  to  tlie  candid  reader  in  view 
of  these  facts,  and  ask  him  to  decide  which  da}^ 
of  the  week  was  looked  upon  as  peculiarly  sacred 
at  the  time  the  gospels  were  written,  provided 
the  gentleman  is  rigid  in  supposing  that  the  his- 
torians used  lanofuag^e  with  reference  to  its  ac- 
ceptance  when  they  wrote,  instead  of  what  it 
meant  when  the  events,  which  they  record,  trans- 
pired. We  believe  the  verdict  will  not  be  long 
delayed.  They  call  the  seventh  day  "  the  Sab- 
bath of  the  commandment."  That  command- 
ment, it  is  conceded,  is  still  binding.  If  it  reads 
the  same  now  that  it  did  then,  the  day  which 
was  the  Sabbatli  at  that  time,  according  to  that 
commandment,  is  still  the  Sabbath  according  to 
the  same  commandment.  But  if  that  command- 
ment has  been  changed,  we  once  more  challenge 
the  religious  world  to  furnish  us  a  copy  of  it  as 
it  now  reads.  Until  they  do  so,  we  shall  continue 
to  observe  the  Sabbath  upon  which  the  devout 
women  rested  ;  on  which  our  Lord  himself  rested 
in  the  tomb  from  his  labors  ;  and  which  four  in- 
spired men,  twenty  years  later,  more  or  less,  still 
persisted  in  calling  "  the  Sabbath." 


154  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 


STATESMAN'S   KEPLY. 


ARGUMENT    FOR    THE    FIRST-DAY    SABBATH    FROM 

THE   GIFT   OF   THE   HOLY   SPIRIT   ON   THE 

DAY   OF   PENTECOST. 

The  testimony  brought  forward  in  our  last 
number  from  the  Gospels  for  the  tirst-day  Sab- 
bath finds  abundant  confirmation  in  other  por- 
tions of  the  New-Testament  Scriptures.  We 
shall  confine  ourselves  in  this  article  to  the  ar- 
gument drawn  from  the  beginning  of  the  second 
chapter  of  the  Acts  :  "  And  when  the  day  of 
Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they  were  all  with  one 
accord  in  one  place."  There  has  been  so  much 
discussion  of  this  passage  that  a  somewhat  care- 
ful consideration  of  it  may  be  of  interest  in  itself, 
as  well  as  from  its  important  connection  with  the 
subject  now  specially  in  hand.  In  regard  to  it, 
we  note : 

1.  The  day  of  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit 
was  the  day  of  Pentecost — not  some  day  preced- 
ing or  following.  The  correct  rendering  of  the 
original  words  is  not,  as  Lightfoot  gives  it,  "  when 
the  day  of  Pentecost  had  passed,"  nor  as  Hitzig 
would  have  it,  "  as  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  ap- 
proaching its  fulfillment ;"  but,  "  while  the  day 
of  Pentecost  was  being  fulfilled  ;"  that  is,  during 
the  progress  of  that  particular  day,  or,  as  our 
authorized  English  version  has  it,  "when  the 
day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come." 

2.  This  day  of  Pentecost,  on  which  the  Holy 


SUNDAY    AXD    THE    SABBATH.  155 

S[)irifc  was  giv^eu,  was  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
A  number  of  eminent  authorities,  chief  amoncr 
whom  is  the  chronologist  AVieseler,  compute  it  to 
have  been  the  seventh.  This  question  hinges 
upon  that  of  the  day  of  the  Lord's  death.  It  is 
ahnost  universally  admitted  that  Christ  was  cru- 
cified on  Friday.  But  it  is  disputed  whether 
that  Friday  was  the  fourteenth  or  the  fifteenth  of 
Nisan.  From  Leviticus  23  :  15,  16,  we  learn  that 
Pentecost,  signifying  literally  the  fiftieth,  was 
counted  from  the  second  day  of  unleavened  bread. 
The  paschal  lamb  was  killed  at  the  close  of  the 
fourteenth  day  of  the  month  Abib  or  Nisan,  and 
the  next  day,  the  fifteenth,  was  the  first  day  of 
unleavened  bread.  This  day  was  regarded  as  a 
holy  Sabbath ;  and  from  the  morrow  following, 
that  is,  from  the  sixteenth  of  Nisan,  fifty  days 
were  to  be  reckoned  to  determine  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost. 

Wieseler  contends  that  the  Lord  was  crucified 
on  the  fifteenth  of  Nisan — the  first  day  of  un- 
leavened bread.  The  sixteenth  of  the  montli 
would  therefore  fall  on  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week,  and  fifty  days,  reckoned  from  and  includ- 
ins:  this,  accordinor  to  the  manner  of  the  Jews, 
would  fix  the  day  of  Pentecost  on  the  Jewish 
Sabbath.  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  many 
who  agree  with  Wieseler  in  regarding  the  Friday 
of  Christ's  crucifixion  as  the  fifteenth  of  Nisan, 
still  reckon  the  fifty  days  so  as  to  make  Pente- 
cost fall  on  the  fii^st  day  of  the  Aveek.  Prominent 
among  these  chronologists  is  Canon  Wordsworth. 

In  all  frankness,  we  would  admit  that  Words- 
worth's reckoning  will  not  hold.  If  the  Friday 
on  which  the  Lord  was  crucified  was  the  fifteenth 
of  Nisan,  and  if  that  day  was  observed  as  the 


156  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

first  day  of  imleavened^bread  so  that  the  speci- 
fied fifty  days  would  be  reckoned  from  the  follow- 
ing day,  then  Pentecost  must  have  occui-red  on 
the  seventh  day  of  the  week. 

Others  of  our  ablest  scholars,  such  as  Greswell, 
Elliott,  and  Schafi*,  maintain  that  the  day  on 
which  our  Lord  was  crucified  was  the  fourteenth 
of  Nisan.  An  exhaustive  discussion  of  this  whole 
question  would  be  out  of  place  in  these  columns. 
We  give  a  brief,  and  we  think  conclusive,  argu- 
ment in  favor  of  the  view  that  the  Friday  of  our 
Lord's  death  was  the  fourteenth  of  Nisan,  and 
that  therefore  the  fifteenth  Nisan,  or  first  day  of 
unleavened  bread,  coincided  with  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath. The  reasons  in  favor  of  this  view  are  the 
following : — 

(1.)  The  language  of  John,  chap.  18  :  28,  inti- 
mates clearly  that  the  Jews  had  not,  on  the 
morning  of  Friday,  yet  partaken  of  the  passover. 
Friday  could  not  therefore  have  been  the  fifteenth 
of  Nisan. 

(2.)  The  same  day,  Friday,  John  states  that 
"  it  was  the  preparation  of  the  passover."  (Chap. 
19  :  14.)  It  seems  next  to  impossible  to  under- 
stand this  expression  in  any  other  way  than  as 
referring  to  that  day,  Friday,  as  the  day  of  prep- 
aration for  Passover  observance,  or,  in  other 
words,  as  the  day  preceding  the  fifteenth  Nisan. 

(3.)  John's  statement,  in  chap.  19  :  31,  that  the 
Sabbath  following  the  day  of  crucifixion  was  "  a 
high  day,"  admits  of  no  easy  or  natural  explana- 
tion except  that  of  the  coincidence  of  the  first 
day  of  unleavened  bread,  or  the  fifteenth  Nisan, 
with  the  seventh-day  Sabbath. 

(4.)  The!  anti-typical  character  of  Christ,  as 
the  Paschal  Lamb  of  God  and  the  true  Passover 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABDATII.  157 

Sacrifice  (Joliii  1 :  29,  36 ;  1  Cor.  5  :  7),  would 
lead  us  to  expect  that  the  very  day  and  hour  of 
his  death  would  correspond  with  the  time  of  the 
killing  of  the  typical  Passover  lamb.  If  it  be 
urged  that  Christ  himself,  with  his  disciples,  in 
obeying  the  requirements  of  the  law,  killed  the 
Passover  on  the  evening  of  the  fourteenth,  and 
that  the  Synoptical  Gospels  intimate  this,  it  may 
be  replied  that  such  an  interpretation  of  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  and  Luke,  is  not  I'ecjuired,  and  that 
the  exceeding  difficulty,  not  to  say  impossibility, 
of  harmonizing  it  with  the  statements  already 
quoted  fi'om  John,  is  quite  decisive  against  it.  It 
is  much  easier  to  interpret  the  Synoptists  in  the 
light  of  John's  Gospel.  In  this  chapter,  13:1,  we 
are  informed  of  a  supper  before  the  passovcr. 
That  this  Avas  the  same  supper  spoken  of  by  the 
Synoptists,  though  one  day  before  the  usual  time, 
in  order  that  the  true  Passover  lamb  might  be  put 
to  death  at  the  time  appointed,  appears  from  the 
peculiar  nature  of  the  message  sent  by  chosen 
apostles  to  the  '•'  good  man  of  tlie  house  " — a 
message  of  special  direction,  pointing  out  some- 
thing of  an  unusual  character.  (See  Matthew 
26  :  18  ;  Mark  14  :  14  ;  and  Luke  22  :  11.)  There 
are  also  in  the  Synoptical  Gospels  a  number  of 
statements  showing  that  the  Friday  on  which 
our  Lord  was  crucified  was  not  marked  by  the 
Sabbatic  sacredness  belonging  to  the  first  day  of 
unleavened  bread.  (See  Matthew  27  :  59 ;  Mark 
15  :  42,  46  ;  Luke  23  :  oQ)  This  seems  to  be  the 
easiest  and  most  natural  way  of  harmonizmg  the 
apparent  discrepancies  between  the  Synoptists 
and  John. 

(5.)  Wieseler's  own  chronological  tables  may 
ba  used  againrst  him  to  show  that  the  Friday  of 


158  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

our  Lord's  crucifixion  was  the  fourteenth  of  Ni- 
san.  We  would  speak  with  becoming  diffidence, 
in  any  attempt  to  make  out  a  system  of  chronol- 
ogy for  the  events  recorded  in  Scripture.  There 
are,  however,  in  Wieseler's  elaborate  book,  tables 
independently  proved  to  be  accurate.  By  them, 
admitting  the  year  of  our  Lord's  crucifixion  to 
have  been  A.  D.  30,  which  is  regarded  by  most 
chronologists  as  highly  probable,  and  admitting 
also  that  the  day  was  Friday,  which  will  not  be 
disputed,  it  is  shown,  beyond  all  doubt,  that 
Christ  died  on  the  fourteenth  of  Nisan,  and  must 
have  eaten  the  passover  with  his  disciples  on  the 
first  hours  of  that  day,  the  preceding  evening. 
The  tables  referred  to  show,  by  the  most  minute 
and  accurate  calculations,  that  in  the  year  A.  D. 
30,  the  new  moon  for  the  month  Nisan  appeared 
on  Wednesday,  the  next  to  the  last  day  of  the 
preceding  month,  corresponding  to  March  22,  at 
eight  minutes  past  eight  o'clock  in  the  evening. 
Hence,  it  would  follow  that  the  first  day  of  Ni- 
san commenced  on  Friday  evening,  March  24, 
corresponding,  as  to  daylight,  with  Saturday, 
March  25  ;  of  course,  the  Friday  of  the  next  week, 
would  be  the  seventh  Nisan,  and  the  same  day, 
the  following  week,  the  fourteenth.  Thus,  ac- 
cording to  Wieseler's  own  tables,  Friday  of  the 
week  of  our  Lord's  passion  is  made  out  to  be  the 
fourteenth  of  Nisan.  The  fifteenth  of  Nisan, 
then,  or  tlie  first  day  of  unleavened  bread,  coin- 
cided at  that  time  with  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week,  or  the  Jewish  Sabbath;  and  reckoning 
fifty  days  from  the  morrow,  that  day  included, 
we  find  Pentecost  falling  on  the  first  day  of  the 
eiojhth  week  followino-  our  Lord's  crucifixion. 
So  clear  and  emphatic  is  the  testimony  of  the 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  159 

primitive  church  to  this  fact  that  many  who 
hold  that  the  Friday  of  Christ's  death  was  the 
fifteenth  Nisan  still  do  so  in  cordial  indorsement 
of  that  fact.  They  reconcile  the  apparent  differ- 
ence between  John  and  the  Synoptists  by  sup- 
posing that  the  Jewish  authorities,  probably  be- 
cause of  the  crucifixion,  or  for  some  other  reason, 
did  not  observe  the  Passover  at  the  usual  time, 
but,  passing  by  the  fifteenth  Nisan,  in  reality 
kept  the  sixteenth  in  its  place  ;  and  thus  count- 
ing the  fifty  days  from  the  seventeenth  of  the 
month,  instead  of  the  sixteenth,  Pentecost  would 
fall  on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

It  is  worth  mentioning,  before  we  pass  on,  that 
the  Karaite  Jews,  like  the  Sadducees  before  them, 
understand  the  word  "  Sabbath  "  in  Leviticus  23  : 
11,  15,  16,  to  mean,  not  the  first  day  of  unleav- 
ened bread,  which  was  kept  as  a  Sabbath,  on 
whatever  day  of  the  week  it  might  fall,  but  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week,  the  regular  weekly 
Sabbath  of  the  Jews.  According  to  this  under- 
standing, the  fifty  days  would  always  be  i-eckoned 
from  the  morrow  after  the  seventh  day,  and  Pen- 
tecost would  always  fall  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week. 

Having  thus  been  at  some  pains  to  establish 
the  fundamental  position  in  this  argument, 
a  position  to  which  scholars  generally  are  com- 
ing with  constantly  increasing  unanimity,  we 
need  not  dwell  long  upon  the  manifest  ap- 
plication of  what  has  been  proven.  The  facts 
here,  after  Christ's  ascension,  are  full  of  sig- 
nificance, as  we  have  seen  the  facts  to  be  con- 
cerning the  days  just  succeeding  his  resurrection. 
After  the  Lord's  ascension,  his  disciples  abode  in 
Jerusalem,  awaiting   the   promised   gift   of  the 


160  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

Spirit.  Many  days  passed  by,  including  two 
seventh  days,  and  still  no  fulfillment  of  tlie  prom- 
ise. On  the  first  day  of  the  second  week  after  the 
ascension,  the  disciples  were  all  with  one  accord  in 
one  place.  Once  more,  the  day  which  the  Lord 
had  singled  out  and  honored  is  specially  honored 
by  the  plentiful  effiision  of  the  Spirit  of  G  od.  And 
thus  the  day  which  Christ  taught  his  disciples  to 
regard  with  special  sacredness,  by  repeatedly  ap- 
pearing to  them  in  their  collective  gatherings, 
and  blessing  them,  is  even  more  clearly  and  sig- 
nificantly marked  out  from  the  other  days  of  the 
week  by  this  most  marvelous  outpouring  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

If  it  be  objected  that  it  was  the  Jewish  festi- 
val, and  not  the  first  day  of  the  week,  that  was 
honored,  it  is  readily  replied  that  there  is  no 
trace  of  the  services  of  the  Jewish  festival  on 
that  blessed  day.  The  Holy  Ghost  was  given, 
not  to  persons  observing  Jewish  ordinances  and 
keeping  the  Pentecost  of  the  old  dispensation 
with  a  new  meat-ofierino^  and  first-fruits'.  He 
was  given  to  Christian  disciples  met  on  the 
Christian's  honored  day ;  and  the  disciples  who 
on  that  day  had  received  important  spiritual  in- 
structions from  the  Lord  just  after  his  resurrec- 
tion, and  who  now,  on  the  same  day,  received  the 
promised  Spirit,  begin  the  ti-ue  work  of  the 
Christian  Sabbath  by  preaching  the  gospel  of 
salvation,  and  three  thousand  souls  are  added  to 
the  church  of  Christ. 

The  objection,  on  the  score  that  Pentecost  only 
happened  to  fall  on  the  first  day  that  year,  is  un- 
worthy of  any  one  who  believes  that  "not  a  spar- 
I'ow  falls  to  the  ground,  without  our  Heavenly 
Father's  notice."     It  has  been  admitted  that  if 


SUNDAY   AND    THE    SABBATH.  161 

the  view  of  the  Kar?dte  Jews  were  true,  and  Pen- 
tecost occniTed  every  year  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  then  would  there  be  a  strong  argument  for 
the  first-day  Sabbath  in  the  pre-arrangements  of 
God's  providence.  But  to  our  mind,  the  argu- 
ment from  the  pre-arrangement  of  providence  is 
stronger  on  the  other  and  better  interpretation  of 
Leviticus  23  :  11,  15,  16.  He  who  in  infinite  wis- 
dom arranged  everything  from  the  beginning, 
so  ordered  all  events  connected  with  Christ's 
death,  as  to  make  the  day  of  Pentecost  coincide 
with  the  Christian  Sabbath,  and  then  gathered  to 
himself,  not  the  first-fruits  of  the  fields  of  grain, 
but  three  thousand  immortal  souls,  the  first-fruits 
of  the  ingathering  of  the  spiritual  fields  white  to 
the  harvest — the  harvest  of  all  the  Gentile  na- 
tions yet  to  be  brought  into  the  church  of  Christ, 
with  tlie  restoration  of  the  covenant  people  of 
old.  This  is  a  Pentecost  worthy  of  the  church  of 
Him  who  died  for  sinners  of  every  race,  and  of 
the  honored  day  which  commemorates  his  rising 
from  the  dead. 


A    REJOINDEK. 


"ARGUMENT  FOR   THE   FIRST-DAY   SABBATH   FROM 

THE   GIFT   OF   THE   HOLY   SPIRIT   ON   THE 

DAY   OF   PENTECOST." 

It  is  always  a  source  of  satisfaction  to  one,  in 
examining  opinions  from  which  he  is  compelled 
to  dififer,  to  feel  that  the  presentation  of  them 
which  he  is  considering  is  the  best  which  could 

Con.  Am.  11  B 


1G2  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

be  made  under  the  circumstances.  With  pleas- 
ure, therefore,  we  recognize  the  manifest  tokens 
of  research  and  erudition  on  the  part  of  the  au- 
thor of  the  views  presented  in  the  columns  of  the 
Statesman,  in  the  communication  entitled,  "Ar- 
gument for  the  first-day  Sabbath  from  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost."  We 
do  not  flatter  ourselves,  however,  that  all  which 
has  been  said  in  that  article  was  for  our  benefit. 
It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  three-fourths  of 
its  contents  are  devoted  to  the  settlement  of  a 
point,  which — while  indeed  it  affects  the  ques- 
tion at  issue — is  not  one  upon  which  we  bestowed 
many  words,  having  preferred  to  consider,  for  the 
sake  of  arofument,  that  the  Pentecost  did,  on  the 
year  of  our  Lord's  crucifixion,  fall  upon  the  first 
day  of  the  week ;  and  then,  having  done  this,  to 
prove  that  this  coincidence  in  no  way  affected, 
necessarily,  the  nature  of  that  day. 

Nevertheless,  we  must  beg  leave  here  to  ex- 
press our  gratitude  that,  notwithstanding  the 
concession  in  question,  the  readers  of  the  States- 
man  are  at  last  instructed  by  an  abler  pen  than 
our  own  in  reference  to  the  diversity  of  opinion 
which  exists  among  the  learned  as  to  whether, 
indeed,  it  is  safe  to  conclude  that  the  Sunday,  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  Sabbath,  was  the  day  upon 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  descended  upon  the  apos- 
tles. Be  it  remembered,  also,  that  the  learned 
men  who  stand  as  the  advocates  of  the  seventh 
day  as  the  one  which  God  thus  honored  were 


SUNDAY    AXD    THE   SABBATH.  163 

not  observers  of  that  da}^  as  the  Sabbath.  All 
the  authorities  quoted  are  men  who,  if  they  re- 
garded any  Sabbath  at  all,  gave  their  preference 
to  the  first,  and  not  to  the  last,  day  of  the  week. 
This  being  the  case,  they  certainly  cannot  be 
charged  with  any  bias  in  favor  of  the  creation 
Sabbath.  Not  only  so,  but  all  their  predilections 
were  doubtless  against  that  day,  and  favorable 
to  its  rival.  Hence  we  see  that  when,  under 
these  circumstances,  it  is  admitted  that  such  dis- 
tinguished men  as  Lightfoot,  Weiseler,  and  Hit- 
zig,  have  agreed  that  the  last  day  of  the  week 
was  the  one  on  which  the  Pentecost  occurred  at 
the  time  in  question,  they  did  so — not  in  the  in- 
terest of  preconceived  notions,  nor  for  the  pur- 
pose of  bolstering  up  a  theory  which  was  in  des- 
perate need  of  help — but  because  there  was,  to 
their  minds,  at  least,  much  which  compelled  a 
conclusion  they  would  gladly  have  avoided. 

Right  here,  also,  in  order  to  widen  the  breach 
in  the  wall  of  evidence,  we  beg  leave  to  act  in 
harmony  with  the  plan  pursued  by  the  writer, 
and  to  present  a  note  from  the  pen  of  one  no  less 
distinguished  than  Professor  Hackett,  which  will 
make  it  manifest  beyond  dispute  that  the  schol- 
ars who  at  the  present  time  sympathize  with 
those  cited  above,  who  regard  the  seventh  day  of 
the  week  and  not  the  first  as  having  been  the 
day  of  the  Pentecost,  are  both  numerous  and  cele- 
brated :  "  It  is  generally  supposed  that  this  Pen- 
tecost, signalized  by  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit, 


164  COXSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

fell  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  our  Saturday."  Quot- 
ed in  "Hist,  of  Sab./'  by  J.  N.  A.,  page  150. 
Let  the  reader  bear  in  mind  that  we  are  not 
assumino^  to  decide  between  these  lonoj  lines 
of  doctors  who  differ  so  widely  upon  a  very  im- 
portant point,  as  regarded  by  some  ;  but  that  our 
purpose  is  simply  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  of 
this  discrepancy,  and  to  show  its  bearing  upon 
the  subject  under  discussion. 

Tlie  first  query  which  should  be  propounded, 
therefore,  is  this :  Has  God  ever  declared  that 
the  day  of  the  Pentecost,  which  we  are  trying 
to  locate,  was  identical  with  the  first  day  of  the 
week  ?  The  answer  is  in  the  negative.  There 
is  not  one  word  in  the  text  (Acts  2 : 1,  2),  or  in 
tlie  Testament,  in  regard  to  the  day  of  the  week 
on  which  these  events  occurred.  It  is  simply 
stated  that  they  took  place  "when  the  day  of 
Pentecost  was  fully  come."  How  remarkable,  if 
the  object  was  not  to  honor  a  feast  which  oc- 
curred annually,  but  especially  for  the  purpose 
of  distinguishing  the  first  day  of  the  week  !  Be- 
fore, however,  that  day  could  be  illustrated  by 
the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  it,  it 
must  first  be  decided — and  that,  too,  from  Bible 
evidence — that  such  outpouring  did  occur  on  the 
day  specified.  Can  this  be  done  ?  Wa  appeal 
for  a  response  to  the  average  Christian  men  and 
women  of  this  time.  Tell  me,  after  having  read 
the  three- column  argument  of  the  gentleman,  has 
not  the  effect  of  what  he  has  said  been  to  unset- 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  165 

tie,  rather  than  to  establish,  your  convictions 
upon  the  point  before  our  minds  ?  If  never  be- 
fore, is  it  not  now  true  that  you  feel  somewhat 
shaken  in  regard  to  the  identity  of  the  Sunday 
with  the  Pentecost,  on  the  year  of  the  crucifix- 
ion ?  In  view  of  what  has  been  written,  would 
you  undertake  to  establish  your  faith  from  any 
deduction  which  you  yourself  could  make  from 
plain  Scripture  declarations  ?  Is  it  not  true  that 
your  opinion  in  the  premises  depends  entirely 
upon  the  faith  of  the  one  or  the  other  class  of 
scholars  who  have  ranged  themselves  on  both 
sides  of  this  subject  ?  Has  the  religion  of  Jesus 
Christ  then  chano;ed  ?  Is  it  no  lonorer  true  that 
its  great  and  important  practical  truths  are  with- 
held "  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  and  revealed 
unto  babes  "  ?  Has  God  left  the  important  ques- 
tion of  first-day  sanctity,  not  upon  the  solid  ba- 
sis of  explicit  command,  but  upon  the  doubtful  in- 
ference which  is  to  be  derived  from  certain  trans- 
actions which  occurred  on  a  certain  day,  and  then 
left  the  day  of  their  occurrence  to  occupy  a  po- 
sition in  the  week  so  doubtful  that  the  most  learn- 
ed of  those  who  had  a  desire  to  keep  it  should 
be  honestly  divided  in  opinion  as  to  which  day 
it  was  ?  We  believe  not.  To  our  mind,  it  is 
simple  presumption  to  intimate  that  God — who 
is  not  willing  that  any  should  perish,  and  who 
has  said  that  he  will  do  nothing  but  he  will  re- 
veal it  to  his  servants  the  prophets — should  deal 


IGG  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

with  liis  creatures  in  a.  manner  at  once  so  indi- 
rect and  so  obscure. 

Havino^  seen  that  there  is  a  v>^ide  divero-ence  of 
views  among  the  very  men  who  are  the  observers 
of  the  modern  Sunday,  in  regard  to  its  claims  to 
distinction  on  the  score  of  its  having  been  first 
honored  by  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
fiftieth  day  after  the  resurrection,  let  us  look  for 
a  moment  at  the  situation  with  reference  to  the 
possible  effect  upon  the  seventh  day,  of  the  logic 
employed.  Taking  it  for  granted  that  our  friends 
would  not  fly  from  their  favorite  deduction  pro- 
vided it  should  prove  to  be  true  that  they  are 
mistaken  in  regard  to  the  time  of  the  Pentecost, 
let  us  concede,  for  the  time  beino;,that  the  lono^  line 
of  celebrities,  headed  by  such  men  as  Lightfoot, 
Weiseler,  and  Hitzicr  were  rio^ht  in  are^uinof  that 
Saturday,  and  not  Sunday,  was  the  day  on  which 
the  great  Jewish  festival  occurred ;  then,  beyond 
all  dispute,  it  must  be  conceded  by  our  opponents 
that  this  v\^as  but  another  effort  on  the  part  of 
Jehovah  to  illustrate,  for  tlie  benefit  of  succeed- 
ing generations,  the  day  which  he  had  previously 
made  memorable  by  his  resting,  his  blessing,  and 
his  sanctification.  In  other  words,  with  this  view 
of  the  design  of  the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit, 
the  effect  upon  the  ancient  Sabbath  would  be  the 
same  as  it  is  now  claimed  to  have  been  upon  the 
first  day  of  the  week.  The  point,  therefore,  of 
the  identity  of  the  days  is  to  tlieiii  a  vital  one. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SACBATII.  167 

If  tlie}^  are  wrong  in  this,  they  are  wrong  in  all. 
We  appeal  to  them,  therefore,  in  view  of  the  in- 
finite consequences  which  hang  upon  the  proper 
celebration  of  the  right  Sabbath,  to  at  least  make 
their  logic  so  plain  that  it  will  be  accepted  by 
men  of  their  own  faith,  before  they  speak  of  its 
strength  with  great  assumption  of  confidence. 
Before  any  person  has  a  right  to  employ  the 
events  which  transpired  at  the  time  of  the  Pen- 
tecostal outpouring  of  the  Spirit  in  the  interest 
of  Sunday  sanctity,  he  must  be  able  to  solve,  at 
least  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  own  mind,  all  the 
difficulties  which  complicate  this  question.  As 
God  has  never  seen  fit  to  say  that  the  Jewish 
feast,  at  the  time  under  consideration,  transpired 
on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  he  must  be  able  to 
establish  that  proposition  independently  of  an 
explicit  tlius  saitk  the  Lord. 

There  are  two  Avays  by  which  this  may  be  at- 
tempted. (1.)  By  proving  that  the  Pentecost  al- 
ways took  place  on  the  first  day  of  the  week ; 
or,  (2.)  By  demonstrating  that  Christ  was  cruci- 
fied on  Friday,  the  fourteenth  day  of  Nisan,  and 
that  consequently  the  Pentecost  must  have  fallen 
upon  a  Sunday  folio v/ing,  and  separated  from 
that  day  by  about  fifty  days.  But,  so  far  as  the 
first  proposition  is  concerned,  which  would  be  by 
far  the  easier  of  demonstration,  if  it  were  true — 
should  the  reader  be  inclined  to  favor  it — he 
must  convince  himself  that  he  could  establish  it 
against  tlic  conviction  and  the   learning   of  the 


1G8  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

writer  in  question;  for  he  rejects  it  as  being  un- 
tenable. Should  he  therefore  turn  to  the  second, 
then,  as  remarked  above,  he  must  be  able  to  prove, 
not  merely  that  Christ  died  on  the  fourteenth 
day  of  the  Jevv^ish  month  Nisan,  but  that  likewise 
that  fourteeiith  day  of  the  month  was  also  the 
sixth  day  of  the  week.  When  we  say  that  this 
will  be  a  task  which  few  minds  are  capable  of 
performing,  and  from  which  those  who  are  best 
informed  will  the  most  readily  turn  away,  we 
but  assert  what  the  writer  in  question  has  very 
distinctly  shadowed  forth  in  the  facile  manner  in 
which  he  disposes  of  the  obscurity  of  the  state- 
ments in  the  three  Synoptical  Gospels  by  arbi- 
trarily deciding  that  they  must  be  interpreted  by 
that  of  John. 

What  the  real  object  of  the  writer  was  in  mak- 
ins:  the  statement  that  the  Karaites  and  the  Sad- 
ducees  held  to  the  first  theory  stated  above,  we 
are  at  a  loss  to  decide,  since  he  himself  concludes 
that  they  were  wrong  in  their  hypothesis.  But 
let  us  suppose  for  a  moment  that  they  were  right, 
and  that  the  Pentecost  always  followed  the  week- 
ly Sabbath ;  would  that  prove  that  it  occurred 
on  Sunday  ?  We  answer,  Yes.  But  would  it 
prove  that  Sunday  was  therefore  holy  time  ?  We 
answer,  No ;  it  would  not  so  much  as  touch  this 
independent  question.  Or  rather,  it  should  be 
said,  if  it  affected  it  at  all,  it  would  increase  the 
strength  of  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  argument. 
Do  you  ask,  How  ?  We  answer  that,  according  to 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SALBATII.  109 

their  theory,  you  must  first  have  a  weekly  Sab- 
bath before  you  could  decide  when  you  had 
reached  the  Pentecost  Sunday.  The  direction  in 
Leviticus  was,  that  they  should  count  to  them- 
selves seven  Sabbaths  from  the  day  that  they 
brought  the  sheaf  of  the  wave-offering,  which 
would  bring  them  to  the  feast  in  question. 

Now  let  it  be  supposed  that  the  crucifixion  an- 
swered to  the  ancient  Passover,  and  that  the 
apostles  proceeded  to  the  determination  of  the 
time  when  the  Pentecost  would  be  reached,  ac- 
cording to  the  theory  of  the  Karaites.  The  first 
thing  which  would  have  been  necessary  was,  the 
weekly  Sabbath,  which  immediately  followed  the 
crucifixion  of  Christ.  Having  found  it,  they 
would  have  numbered  seven  Sabbaths,  and  have 
decided  that  the  day  immediately  following  the 
last  •  of  these  answered  to  the  feast.  But  unfor- 
tunately for  them  they  would  have  discovered — 
had  they  believed  in  the  modern  doctrine  that 
the  law  of  the  Sabbath  was  nailed  to  the  cross. 
Col.  2:16  (?) — that  they  were  deprived  of  a  start- 
ing point ;  for  the  Sabbath  institution  is  a  thing 
of  commandment.  Take  away  the  command- 
ment, and  the  institution  is  gone.  Therefore,  as 
the  cross  had  accomplished  its  work,  and  had 
been  taken  down  on  Friday,  God  had  removed 
the  landmark  from  which  they  were  commanded 
to  measure  the  time  which  should  bring  them  to 
the  Pentecost  at  the  very  period  when  they 
needed  it  most.     In  reality,  there  was  left  them 


170  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

no  Sabbath  wLicli  answered  to  the  one  in  Levit- 
icus. 

Should  it  be  replied,  however,  that  the  Sab- 
bath, though  gone  in  fact,  existed  nevertheless  in 
name,  it  might  be  responded  that  this  would  in- 
deed be  an  anomalous  condition  of  things.  Mark 
it :  it  is  not  the  incidental  mention,  by  its  proper 
name,  of  an  institution  which  had  ceased  to  be, 
which  we  are  considering  ;  but  it  is  the  deliber- 
ate action  of  that  God  who  knoAvs  the  end  from 
the  beginning,  in  compelling  the  disciples  to  treat 
the  seventh  day  of  the  week  as  the  Sabbath,  in 
order  to  the  decision  of  an  important  fact ;  for 
eight  weeks  after,  as  is  claimed,  it  had  lost  its 
Sabbatic  character. 

Again ;  should  it  be  urged,  as  a  means  of  es- 
cape from  the  embarrassments  of  the  situation, 
that  God  did  not  actually  require  them  to  count 
the  seventh  day  as  the  Sabbath,  since  there  was 
really  no  day  of  Pentecost  which  they-  were 
obliged  to  keep  on  the  year  of  our  Lord's  cruci- 
fixion, we  answer,  Very  good.  Then,  of  course,  we 
shall  heai'  nothinof  hereafter  from  the  arnjument 
for  Sunday  sanctity  which  is  based  upon  tlie  hy- 
pothesis that  the  day  of  Pentecost  fell  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week  in  the  year  in  question, 
since  it  will  have  been  admitted  that  there  was 
no  Pentecost  that  year,  and  consequently  that  it 
could  not  properly  be  said  to  have  fallen  upon 
any  day. 

Once  more ;  should  it  be  insisted  that  though 


SUNDAY    AND   THE    SABBATH.  171 

the  Pentecostal  feast  was  not  binding  in  the  year 
of  our  Lord  30,  or  thereabout,  but  that  the  an- 
titype of  the  feast  was  the  thing  of  importance, 
then,  in  reply,  ii  may  be  said  that  God  rendered 
it  necessary  for  them,  in  order  to  locate  that  an- 
titype according  to  the  Karaite  view,  to  count 
the  Sa^bbatli  which  followed  the  crucifixion  as  the 
Sabbath  of  creation,  a  thing  which  certainly  will 
be  very  difficult  of  explanation  by  those  who 
can  speak  as  becomingly  of  the  providence  of 
God  as  did  the  gentleman  in  the  article  which  is 
passing  under  review. 

Finally,  we  repeat,  therefore,  that,  if  indeed 
there  were  a  legal  Pentecost  this  side  of  the  death 
of  our  Lord,  and  if  the  Karaite  system  for  locat- 
ing it  were  the  right  one,  then  the  seventh  day 
which  follov/ed  the  death  of  Christ  was  distin- 
guished by  three  very  significant  facts.  1.  It 
was  honored  by  the  women  (and  thei'efore  by  the 
disciples)  by  their  resting  upon  it.  2.  Luke,  in 
speaking  of  it  thirty  years  subsequent  to  its  oc- 
currence, mentions  it  as  the  Sabbath,  "according 
to  the  commandment."  3.  God  made  it  necessa- 
ry that  the  whole  Jewish  nation  should  keep  the 
Pentecostal  feast  fifty  days  after  the  crucifixion 
of  the  Lord ;  and,  in  doing  so,  that  they  should 
count  the  seventh  day  of  the  v/eek  as  still  con- 
tinuing to  be  the  Sabbath. 

In  passing  to  the  last  branch  of  the  subject, 
which  will  be  treated  in  this  article,  we  invite 
the  reader  to  note  the  following  facts,  as  we  shall 


172  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

have  occasion  to  employ  them  hereafter :  1.  That 
the  writer  proceeds  with  his  reasoning  upon  the 
hypothesis  that  the  months  at  the  time  of  the 
crucifixion  were  Jewish  months,  commencino; 
with  the  new  moon.  2.  That  the  days  were 
Jewish  days,  commencing  and  ending  with  the 
setting  of  the  sun.  These  points  we  have  pre- 
viously urged,  and  are  happy  to  see  that  they  are 
conceded  as  being  correct. 

In  conclusion,  we  turn  our  attention  to  the  re- 
maining feature  of  the  communication  in  the 
Statesman,  i.  e.,  that  portion  of  the  article  v/hich 
relates  to  the  real  matter  in  dispute,  namely — 
granting,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  first 
day  of  the  week  was  the  one  on  which  the  Pen- 
tecost fell  in  the  year  under  consideration — 
whether  that  fact  necessarily  aflfected  the  charac- 
ter of  that  day  so  as  to  mark  it  out  as  one  which 
God  had  chosen  as  peculiarly  his  own.  For,  be  it 
remembered,  that — though  the  whole  argument 
which  has  been  made  respecting  the  identity  of 
those  two  days  should  be  conceded — we  should 
then  simply  be  prepared  to  decide  whether  the 
facts  agreed  upon  would  prove  what  is  claimed, 
or  not. 

We  ask,  therefore,  the  candid  attention  of  all 
to  the  use  which  has  been  made  of  the  elaborate 
argument  which  we  have  been  carefully  consider- 
ing, point  by  point.  We  would  naturally  have 
expected — if  the  gentleman  felt  tha^t  he  had 
proved  what  he  desired  to,  namely,  that  the  Pen- 


SUJiDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  173 

tecost  fell  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week — that 
the  real  sinews  of  a  masterly  logic  would  have 
been  discovered  in  an  effort  to  show  that  it  fol- 
lowed of  necessity  that  it  must  therefore  have 
been  holy  time.  But  has  he  done  this  ?  Or,  in 
other  words,  if  he  has,  in  what  manner  has  he 
brought  it  about  ?  Has  it  been  by  fair  logical 
deduction  ?  We  believe  that  there  are  very  few 
who  will  insist  that  he  has  attempted  such  a  de- 
duction, with  any  measure  of  success,  at  the  very 
point  where  it  should  have  been  expected  most. 

What  he  has  said  in  the  connection  is  very 
pretty.  Yes,  pretty  is  the  w^ord  wdiich  precisely 
expresses  it.  How  handsomely  he  alludes  to  the 
analogy  between  the  natural  harvest  and  the  in- 
gathering of  souls.  But  who  does  not  know  that 
such  analogies  are  cheap  things,  and  that  one 
gifted  with  a  prolific  fancy  can  multiply  them 
indefinitely  ?  What  was  expected,  and  what  we 
had  a  right  to  demand,  was  something  which  par- 
took of  the  nature  of  certainty.  How  great  was 
our  disappointment  at  learning  that  the  writer 
did  not  QYQTi  pretend  to  have  any  autJiority  from 
the  Lord,  so  far  as  ^vritten  statements  are  con- 
cerned. The  whole  thing  he  thought  was  fairly 
deducihle  from  the  coincidence  of  days,  since  noth- 
ing ever  merely  "  happens  "  to  occur  in  the  prov- 
idence of  God. 

What  has  been  gained,  then  ?  .  Manifestly, 
simply  the  point  that  God  had  some  object  in 
view  in  havin'j  tlic  Pentecost  fall  on  the  first 


174  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

day  of  the  week  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  30,  or 
thereabout.  The  next  question  to  be  decided  is. 
What  was  that  object  ?  Right  here  is  where  we 
need  help.  God  could  have  given  it  to  us,  had 
he  seen  Jit  so  to  do.  He  has  not  done  so,  there- 
fore it  is  safe  to  conclude  that  it  was  not  impor- 
tant that  we  should  know  what  his  purpose  was. 

But  if  any  gentleman  can  be  found  who  is  ivise 
above  luhat  is  zuritten,  and  who  is  able  to  decide 
with  unerring  certainty  as  to  the  motives  of  God 
at  all  times,  and  under  all  circumstances,  we 
should  like  to  propound  a  few  questions  to  him. 
First,  what  did  God  mean  when,  in  his  provi- 
dence, he  allowed  the  Pentecost  to  fall  upon  Mon- 
day, Tuesday,  Wednesday,  Thursday,  Friday,  or 
Saturday  ?  It  is  said  that  God  Jiad  a  purpose  in 
it ;  but  can  any  one  tell  us  luhat  that  purpose 
was  ?  When  he  has  answered  this,  then  we  have 
a  list  of  similar  interrogatories,  to  the  solution  of 
which  his  wisdom  v/ill  be  invited.  In  the  mean- 
time, we  shall  adopt  the  suggestions  of  men  in 
regard  to  plans  of  Deity  with  great  caution,  foi^, 
if  it  sliould  fall  out  in  the  day  of  Judgment  that 
we  had  followed  their  fallacious  inferences,  to  the 
disregard  of  a  positive,  written  law  of  God,  we 
know  not  what  defense  could  be  made  for  our 
course  of  conduct,  since  we  had  been  previously 
informed  that  "  his  judgments  are  unsearchahle," 
"  and  his  ways  p>ast  finding  out" 

Nov/  let  us  look  at  the  proposition  concerning 
the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit,     It  is  agreed  on  all 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SABEATH.  175 

hands  that  the  manifestation  occuiTed  as  written. 
It  is  inferred  by  the  writer  in  question  that  it 
was  done  v.^ith  reference  especially  to  the  honor- 
ing as  sacred  of  the  day  of  the  resurrection. 
Here,  again,  is  the  assumption  of  knowledge 
which  has  never  been  imparted  by  divine  author- 
ity. God  has  never  sccid  that  he  meant  any  such 
thing.  Not  only  so,  but  it  cannot  even  be  fairly 
inferred  that  such  was  his  purpose.  First.  Be- 
cause he  does  not  so  much  as  mention,  in  the  rec- 
ord, the  first  day  of  the  week  by  name,  an  omission 
which  can  never  be  explained  satisfactorily  by 
those  who  insist  that  the  events  which  occurred 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost  transpired  with  especial 
reference  to  the  honoring  above  all  others,  on  the 
part  of  Jehovah,  of  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
Secondl}^  Because,  were  we  to  judge  at  all  in  the 
matter,  a.s  he  passed  over  six  first- days,  waiting 
for  the  arrival  of  the  Pentecost,  we  must  conclude 
that  there  was  something  in  connection  Avith  that 
feast  which  induced  him  to  act  when  he  did,  and 
as  he  did.  Thirdly.  Because  the  Pentecost  fur- 
nished an  opportunity  for  the  display  of  the 
power  of  the  ascended  Christ  before  thousands  of 
Jews  and  proselytes  from  all  parts  of  the  habit- 
able globe,  more  advantageously  than  could  be 
done  at  any  other  time ;  thus  rendering  it  unnec- 
essary that  any  other  reason  should  be  sought  in 
explanation  of  its  selection  from  among  the  other 
days  of  the  year  for  the  great  outpouring  of  the 
Spirit.     Fourthly.  Because,  in  apostolic  times,  it 


176  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

was  not  an  uncommon  thing  for  the  Holy  Ghost 
to  fall  upon  men  on  all  days  of  the  week ;  thus 
proving  that  God  is  not  restricted  in  the  out- 
pouring of  his  Spirit  to  holy  times  and  places, 
and  that  it  is  not  safe  to  conclude  that  any  dis- 
play of  his  power  in  this  direction  was  made  at 
any  one  time  because  of  a  special  regard  for  the 
particular  hours  on  which  it  took  place. 

In  conclusion,  as  the  fabric  of  Sunday  sanctity, 
in  so  far  as  it  is  based  upon  the  transactions  of 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  is  seen  to  rest,  purely  upon 
the  opinions  of  men,  and  since  those  who  observe 
the  day  are  divided  in  sentiment  as  to  whether 
the  Pentecost  did  indeed  really  fall  upon  it  at 
all,  we  close  this  article,  as  we  did  the  last,  by 
stating  that  we  have  a  positive  comma7idment 
which  is  admitted  to  be  binding,  and  which,  as 
given  in  the  Bible,  says  that  the  "  seventh  day 
is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God ;  in  it  thou 
shalt  not  do  any  work."  Also,  that  our  advice  to 
those  who  are  weary  with  threading  the  inter- 
minable labyrinth  of  conjecture  and  hypothesis 
is.  Place  your  feet  upon  the  rock  of  the  written 
word;  there,  and  there  only,  you  are  safe. 
Should  any  one  seek  to  lure  you  from  this  posi- 
tion by  the  assertion  that  the  law  upon  which 
you  have  planted  yourself  has  been  amended,  it 
will  be  safe  to  follow  them  only  when  they  are 
able  to  tell  you  when  and  where  the  command- 
ment, as  given  in  Exodus,  was  changed,  and  ex- 
actly how  it  reads  since  the  change  has  occurred. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABDATII.  177 


STATESMAN'S    REPLY. 


THE    FIRST-DAY   SABBATH   AT   TROAS. 

The  day  on  wliicli  the  Saviour  rose  from  the 
dead,  tlie  day  which  the  risen  Saviour  singled 
out  and  blessed  repeatedly  with  his  presence,  the 
day  on  which  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given  to  the 
church, — this  honored  day  certainly  could  not 
pass  without  stated  observance  by  the  disciples 
of  the  risen  and  ascended  Lord.  It  is  but  rea- 
sonable to  expect  that  the  day  wliich  Christ  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  honored  would  be  honored  by 
the  early  church. 

Passing  on  in  the  sacred  narrative,  w^e  come  to 
the  account  of  first-day  Sabbath  observance  some 
twenty-six  or  twenty-eight  years  after  the  Pen- 
tecostal gift  of  the  Spirit.  In  just  such  a  matter- 
of-course  way  as  that  in  which  a  well-known 
and  established  custom  would  be  noted,  is  the 
observance  of  the  first  day  at  Troas  mentioned 
in  Acts  20  :  6,  7  :  "  We  sailed  away  from  PhiUppi 
after  the  days  of  unleavened  bread,  and  came 
.  to  Troas  in  five  days,  where  we  abode 
seven  days.  And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
when  the  disciples  came  together  to  break  bread, 
Paul  preached  unto  them,  ready  to  depart  on  the 
morrov/,  and  continued  his  speech  until  mid- 
night." Several  important  points  should  here  be 
noted : — 

1.  Paul  and  his  companions  remained  at  Troas 


178  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

seven  days — from  the  third  day  of  one  week  un- 
til the  second  day  of  the  next  week. 

2.  At  this  time,  there  was  a.t  Troas  a  company 
or  church  of  Christian  disciples,  who  would,  of 
course,  hold  regular  religious  services. 

3.  Besides  the  Trojan  Christians,  there  were  at 
Troas,  during  these  "  seven  days,"  at  least  nine 
others,  including  Paul  and  Luke  (see  verse  4), 
who  would  not  let  a  week  pass  without  observ- 
ing a  stated  day  of  worship.     And  yet, 

4.  Neither  the  disciples  resident  at  Troas,  nor 
Paul  and  his  companions,  pay  any  regard  to  the 
seventh  day.  The  whole  narrative  plainly  inti- 
mates that  Paul  held  himself  in  readiness  to  de- 
part, waiting  only  for  the  stated  weekly  day  of 
public  service.  And  the  seventh  day  has  no 
more  sacredness  assigned  to  it  than  the  fifth  or 
sixth.  Had  it  been  the  customary  day  of  meet- 
ing, the  disciples  v/ould  have  assembled  on  it, 
and  Paul  would  have  been  ready  to  depart  on  the 
movvoiv,  the  first  day  of  the  week.  On  the  other 
hand, 

5.  The  first  day  of  the  week  was  observed  as 
the  stated,  customary  weekly  day  of  divine 
service  by  the  Christians  at  Troas.  The  word, 
rendered  "  came  toofether,"  indicates  this.  It  is 
most  intimately  related  to  the  word  in  Hebrews 
10  :  25,  rendered  "  assemblino^  too^ether."  The 
latter  is  the  noun,  with  an  added  preposition 
from  the  former  word,  the  verb.  These  two 
terms,  and  another  kindred  word,  are  the  com- 
mon terms  for  regular  church  meetings  in  the 
New  Testament.  (See  Hebrews  10  :  25 ;  1  Cor. 
11 :  17, 18 ;  14 :  23,  2G.)  Again,  it  will  be  noticed 
that  the  meeting  of  the  disciples  on  this  first  day 
was  for  regular  public  services  of  the  Christian 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SADBATII.  179 

cluircb.  They  came  together  to  "  break  bread," 
or  observe  tlie  Lord's  supper,  and  to  hear  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel.  Besides,  let  it  be  no- 
ticed, it  is  not  said  that  Paul  summoned  the 
disciples  together ;  but  it  is  said  that  they  "  came 
together."  Or,  if  we  follow  the  reading  of  the 
oldest  manuscripts,  the  customary  character  of 
this  Christian  first-day  assemblage  will  be  made 
even  more  manifest.  This  reading  is  as  follows : 
"  And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  v:e 
came  together."  Whether  this  is  the  correct 
reading  or  not,  it  expresses  undoubtedly  the  fact. 
Paul,  Luke,  and  their  companions,  as  well  as  the 
Trojan  Christians,  met  for  divine  service,  accord- 
ing to  the  usual  practice  of  Christians  generally, 
on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

It  remains  for  us  to  consider  the  mode  of  reck- 
oning time  which  would  fix  Paul's  departure 
from  Troas  on  the  morning  of  the  first  day  of 
the  week.  Frankness  and  justice  require  us  to 
state  that  even  so  authoritative  a  writer  as  Mr. 
Howson,  in  that  able  and  scholarly  work,  "  The 
Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,"  adopts  this  mode 
of  reckoning,  and,  in  accordance  with  it,  pictures 
out  Paul's  solitary  journey  from  Troas  to  Assos 
on  the  hallowed  hours  of  the  Christian  Sabbath. 

No  one  will  dispute  for  a  moment  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  Jewish  mode  of  reckoning,  the  day 
would  begin  at  sundown,  and  in  this  way  the 
evenino;  of  the  meetino;  at  Troas  would  be  the 
evening  succeeding  the  seventh  day,  and  Paul's 
journey  of  nearly  twenty  miles  would  be  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week.  But  it  is  perfectly  clear 
from  the  Scriptures  that  the  Koman  method  of 
reckoning  the  commencement  of  the  day  had  al- 
ready, to   some   extent,  supplanted  the  Jewi.sh 


180  C0N«T1TUTI0NAL    AMENDMENT. 

mode.  Nor  is  it  any  wonder  that  the  method  of 
t]ie  Romans,  who  were  at  the  time  in  authority 
in  Palestine,  should  have  obtained  some  recogni- 
tion, even  among  the  Jews. 

John,  in  a  passage  quoted  in  a  former  article, 
uses  the  following  language  :  "  The  same  day  at 
evening,  being  the  first  day  of  the  week."  (John 
20  :  19.)  The  meeting  at  Troas,  in  the  evenhig 
of  the  first  day,  may  not  have  been  without  ref- 
erence to  the  meeting  of  the  Lord  with  his  disci- 
ples late  in  the  evening  of  the  same  day  he  arose 
from  the  dead.  But  whether  there  is  any  refer- 
ence in  the  meeting  at  Troas  to  the  meeting 
recorded  by  John  or  not,  the  passage  above 
quoted  clearly  proves  that  the  late  evening  suc- 
ceeding the  first  day  of  tlie  week  was  reckoned  a 
part  of  the  first  clay,  and  not  a  part  of  the  day 
following — "The  same  day  at  evening  [o^jsia, 
late  evening,  after  dark,  it  would  appear],  being 
the  first  day  of  the  week." 

Matthew,  writing  particularly  for  J  ewish  Chris- 
tians, adopts  the  Roman  method  in  chap.  28 :  1, 
in  the  expression  :  "  In  the  end  of  the  Sabbath 
[literally,  late  of  the  Sabbath,  0j9se,  late,  away  on 
after  dark],  as  it  began  to  dawn  toward  the  first 
day  of  the  week."  Here,  manifestly,  the  seventh 
day  is  reckoned  as  continuing  during  a  number 
of  hours,  whicli,  according  to  the  Jewish  mode, 
belonged  to  the  following  day.  If  Matthew, 
writing  for  Jewish  Christians,  employs  the  Ro- 
man mode  of  reckoning,  is  it  not  altogether 
probable  that  Luke,  writing  especially  for  Gen- 
tiles, would  adopt  tlie  same  m.ode  ? 

But  we  need  only  look  carefully  at  Luke's 
own  language  to  settle  this  point.  His  statement 
is  that   Paul  preached,  "  ready  to  depart  oil  tJie 


SUNDAY    AN1>    THE    SAlJlJATlf.  181 

morrow!'  It  is  acn^eed  on  all  hands  that  tlie 
Christian  disciples  at  Troas  came  together  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  and  that  Paul  preached  to 
them  on  that  day.  Now,  if  the  time  of  meeting 
was  the  evening  succeeding  the  seventh  day,  ac- 
cordinsf  to  the  Jewish  mode  of  reckonincr,  could 
it  be  said  that  Paul,  taking  his  leave  at  a  later 
hour  that  same  day,  departed  on  tJte  inorroiu  ? 
The  original  term,  epauvion,  is  an  adverb,  liter- 
ally signifying  ''upon  the  morrov/."  But  con- 
nected with  it  is  the  feminine  article,  aOTeeinor 
with  the  word,  "  day,"  understood.  This  makes 
the  expression,  if  possible,  still  more  explicit — 
'''  the  day  which  is  the  morrow,"  the  next  day. 
Can  there  remain  the  slightest  doubt  as  to  Luke's 
meanin^x  ?  The  Christian  con<xregation  at  Troas 
met  on  one  day  of  the  week.  Paul  preached  to 
them  on  that  day.  It  was  the  first  day.  On  the 
miorroiv,  not  the  same  day,  but  another,  the  fol- 
lowing, the  second  day  of  the  week,  Paul  de- 
parted, as  he  had  held  himself  for  some  da.ys  in 
readiness  to  do,  on  his  v/ay  to  Assos.  Thus,  as 
we  have  a  right  to  expect,  there  is  no  violation 
by  the  apostle  and  his  fellow-Christians  of  the 
laAV  of  the  Sabbath. 

We  have  not  dwelt  upon  this  question  of  dif- 
ferent modes  of  reckoning  because  of  any  im- 
portance which  may  be  claimed  for  it  in  connec- 
tion with  the  main  inquiry  before  us.  It  is 
entirely  immaterial  to  tlie  point  at  issue  in  this 
discussion  whether  Luke  employs  the  Jewish  or 
the  Roman  mode.  Even  if  it  could  be  made  to 
appear  that  he  makes  use  of  the  former,  there 
could  be  found  nothing  in  his  narrative  in  favor 
of  the  seventh -day  Sabbath.  The  argument  for 
the  first-day  SablDath  v/ould  still  remain  in  its 


182  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENUMEXT. 

integrity,  leaving  for  consideration  simply  the 
question  as  to  the  consistency  of  certain  acts,  in 
a  certain  case,  with  the  lav*^  of  a  holy  day  of  rest 
and  worship.  For  the  sake  of  giving  a  pretty 
full  exposition  of  a  passage  important  in  itself, 
and  because  a  wrong  interpretation  has  been 
given  by  high  authority  in  countenance  of  a 
mischievous  theory  of  the  Sabbath,  v/e  have 
occupied  much  of  our  space  for  this  issue  in 
showing  that  the  evening  or  night  of  the  first 
day  of  the  week  was  the  end  of  the  Christian 
Sabbath,  and  that  Paul  and  his  companions,  like 
good,  Sabbath-keeping  Christians,  waited,  though 
ready  to  depart,  until  Monday  morning,  before 
starting  on  their  journey  to  Assos. 

We  propose  to  conclude  the  argument  from 
Scripture  in  our  next  number.  After  this,  we 
shall  give  the  testimony  of  the  standard  authori- 
ties of  the  lirst  three  centuries  of  the  Christian 
era.  And  then,  with  the  facts  concernino-  sacred 
time  before  us,  we  shall  inquire  what  theory  of 
the  Sabbath  harmonizes  all  the  authenticated 
facts  into  one  consistent  whole. 


A    REJOINDER. 


-'  THE    FIRST-DAY   SABBATH   AT   TROAS. 

In  entering  upon  an  examination  of  the  prop- 
ositions laid  down  in  the  article  entitled,  "  The 
First-day  Sabbath  at  Troas,"  it  will  be  well  for 
us  first  to  inquire  into  tlie  object  which  the 
writer  had  in  view  in  presenting  them  for  our 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SAUBATH.  183 

consideration.  In  doing  so,  we  shall  find  that  he 
does  not  claim  that  the  text  or  context  of  Acts 
20  :  7,  furnishes  any  positive  precept  for  Sunday 
observance.  His  effort  is  merely  to  establish  a 
custom.  Suppose,  therefore,  that  we  sliould  grant 
all  that  he  asks,  so  far  as  the  church  of  Troas  is 
concerned,  would  that  prove  that  Christians  uni- 
versally are  under  obligation  to  follow  a  like  cus- 
tom ?  We  think  not,  unless  it  can  be  shown 
that  God  has  adopted  this  mode  of  inculcating 
religious  duty.  But  this  he  has  never  done.  If 
the  writer  had  first  established  a  positive  law, 
then  he  might,  with  some  show  of  reason,  appeal 
to  custom  to  show  that  that  law  was  interpreted 
as  he  understands  it ;  but  when  he  reverses  the 
order,  and  endeavors  to  prove  the  law  by  the 
custom,  then  he  has  reversed  God's  great  plan, 
which  is  that  of  teaching  by  explicit  statute. 

Furthermore,  even  should  a  custom  be  estab- 
lished, the  writer  must  be  able  to  show  that  such 
a  custom  was  kept  up,  not  as  a  matter  of  conven- 
ience or  taste,  but  because  of  a  conviction  of  re- 
ligious duty.  In  other  words,  it  is  possible,  to 
say  the  least,  that  the  church  at  Troas  were  in 
the  habit  of  meeting  on  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
not  because  they  looked  upon  it  as  holy  time, 
but  for  certain  utilitarian  purposes,  best  known 
to  themselves.  Let  us  furnish  an  illustration 
precisely  in  point : — 

Should  some  person,  eighteen  hundred  years 
hence — provided  time  should  last  so  long — write 


184  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDilENT. 

a  histoiy  of  tlio  present  period,  as  he  cast  liis  eye 
over  the  literature  of  our  clay,  lie  avouIcI  find  that, 
in  all  parts  of  this  country.  Christians  were  in 
the  habit  of  assembling  on  Wednesday  evening, 
for  the  purposes  of  v/orship.  AVould  he,  there- 
fore, be  justified  in  concluding  that  Wednesday 
is  regarded  by  us  as  peculiarly  sacred  to  the 
Lord  ?  You  answer,  No,  and  most  properly,  for 
you  know  that  our  motives  are  entirely  different 
from  what  he  would  understand  them  to  be.  So, 
too,  with  Troas.  Granted,  for  the  sake  of  the  ar- 
gument, that,  as  the  writer  claims,  they  were  in 
the  habit  of  assembling  on  the  late  Sunday  even- 
ing ;  it  by  no  means  follows  that  they  did  so  be- 
cause they  regarded  it  as  devoted  to  the  Lord. 
Loes  he  say  that  they  partook  of  the  sacrament 
on  that  day  ?  Grant  that,  for  the  sake  of  the  ar- 
gument. But  does  not  every  student  of  the  Bible 
know,  and  is  it  not  the  conviction  of  the  world 
to-day,  that  the  Lord's  supper  can  be  partaken 
of  with  as  much  propriety  at  one  time  as  at  an- 
other ?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  time  of  its  insti- 
tution did  not  coincide  with  Sunday  ?  Is  it  not 
true  that  originally  they  partook  of  it  on  all  days 
of  the  week  ?  (Acts  2  :  42,  46.)  If  so,  it  would 
manifestly  be  unsafe  to  attach  any  special  signif- 
icance to  the  fact  that,  at  this  time,  it  was  cele- 
brated on  the  Sunday,  So  much  for  the  hypoth- 
esis of  the  custom  in  question. 

Now  that  Yie  have  said  what  we  have  with  ref- 
erence to  a  custom  made  out,  it  will  be  well  to 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SAUBATII.  1S5 

inquire  in  the  next  place,  Has  the  vviitcr  establish- 
ed the  usPvge  which  he  sought  to  prove  ?  If  so, 
we  have  failed  to  discover  the  process  by  which  it 
has  been  done.  Has  he  found  an  explicit  state- 
ment that  the  church  at  Troas  was  in  the  habit 
of  meeting. on  the  first  day  of  the  week  ?  Very 
far  from  it.  Havini^  traced  the  sacred  narrative 
for  twenty-six  years — mark  it,  reader,  over  one- 
fourth  of  a,  century — he  has  found  a  solitary  as- 
sembly of  Christians  convened  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week.  But  what  were  the  facts  in  the  case  ? 
Was  this  an  ordinary  occasion  ?  Were  they  by 
themselves  alone  ?  No ;  it  was  a  time  of  unusual 
interest.  The  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles  was 
there,''paying  them  a  flying  visit.  He  v,^as  about 
to  depart  on  the  morrow.  It  was  perhaps  the 
last  time  they  would  ever  see  him.  They  wanted 
to  partake  of  the  emblems  of  the  Lord's  body 
from  his  venerated  hand.  They  wanted  to  shake 
that  hand  in  a  final  farewell,  and  to  plant  the 
kiss  of  love  upon  his  carev/orn  face.  The  cir- 
cumstances, then,  were  unusual.  The  same  com- 
bination of  facts  might  never  exist  again.  There 
is,  therefore,  so  far  as  the  general  viev/  is  con- 
cerned, nothing  which  would  justify  the  decision 
that  they  had  ever  convened  for  like  reasons,  pre- 
viously, at  the  same  time  of  the  week,  or  that 
they  ever  would  thereafter.  The  writer  evidently 
felt  this,  and,  with  an  acuteness  of  intellectual 
perception  which  to  the  common  mind  is  almost 
incredible,  he  has  discovered  overwhelming  sup- 


186  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

port  for  his  theory,  where  the  ordinary  reader 
would  have  discerned  none. 

How  strange  it  is  that,  again  and  again,  we  find 
that  the  strongholds  of  Sunday  sanctity  are  loca- 
ted just  beyond  the  boundary  where  the  man  of 
average  ability  and  learning  is  permitted  to  go. 
The  Greek,  he  is  told,  has  a  significance  which,  if 
rightly  expressed,  would  establish  a  custom  be- 
yond all  doubt.  Well,  we  have  seen  above  what 
the  value  of  a  custom  is,  unless  explained.  But  we 
ask — and  we  ask  it  in  the  behalf  of  the  millions 
who  have  never  so  much  as  seen  even  the  Greek 
alphabet,  and  yet  to  whom  eternal  life  is  as  pre- 
cious as  to  the  man  of  letters — can  it  be  possible 
that  God  has  suspended  the  terrible  realities  of 
Heaven  and  hell  upon  the  discharge  of  a  duty 
vailed  from  their  eyes  by  the  obscurity  of  a  lan- 
guage whose  mysteries  they  can  never  hope  to 
penetrate  ?  For,  mark  it,  this  is  not  one  of  those 
points  which  can  be  settled  without  difficulty, 
even  by  those  famihar  with  the  tongue  in  ques- 
tion. Were  our  learning  equal  to  that  of  the 
gentleman  v/ho  has  penned  the  criticism  under 
consideration,  we  might  flatl}^  contradict  the 
statements  Vvhich  he  makes ;  but  tliis  would  sim- 
ply serve  to  produce  a  dead-lock  in  the  mind  of 
the  reader,  while  he  remained  as  far  from  a  sat- 
isfactory solution  of  the  difficulty  as  ever.  The 
only  reply  which  we  shall  make,  therefore,  is  as 
follows : — 

The  distinction  drawn   between   the   present 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  187 

text  and  the  original  is  either  obscure,  or  it 
is  obvious.  If  it  is  obscure,  it  is  unimportant ; 
if  obvious,  then  it  could  be  seen  by  scholars,  and 
is  so  important  that  it  v."0uld  have  attracted  uni- 
versal attention  and  comment  by  first-day  writ- 
ers and  translators.  What,  therefore,  are  the 
facts  in  the  case  ?  Certain  it  is  that,  if  it  exists 
at  all,  it  escaped  the  notice  of  the  translators  of 
our  common  version.  That  they  would  have 
given  a  rendering  as  favorable  to  the  first  day  as 
the  facts  would  warrant,  no  man  will  dispute. 
The  suo'orestion  that  the  text  would  bear  the 
translation,  "  ive  having  come  together  to  break 
bread,"  &c.,  *  while  it  does  not  materially  alter 
the  sense,  so  far  as  the  practice  of  the  church  at 
Troas  is  concerned,  if  admissible,  renders  it  highly 
probable  that  Luke  and  his  associates  were  there 
until  the  breaking  of  the  bread ;  a  point  which 
we  shall  use  hereafter.  In  the  meantime,  we 
give  the  following  translations  in  order  to  show 
the  conviction  of  their  authors,  respecting  the 
meanino'  of  the  orimnal : — 

"And  on  the  first  day  of  the  v/eek,  when  we 
assembled,"  &c. — Syriac. 

"  On  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  w^e  were 
met  together." — Wesley,  N.  T.,  luith  Notes. 

"And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when 
the  disciples  were  got  together." — Wakefield. 

*Asitis  not  insisted  tliat  this  translation  is  a  correct  one,  I 
shall  not  turn  aside  for  the  purpose  of  showing,  as  might  easily 
be  done,  from  the  original,  that  it  is  not  admissible  where  the 
rule  of  strict  construction  is  followed. 


188  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

"And  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  disci- 
ples being  assembled." — Whiting. 

"And  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  we,  having 
come  too-ether  to  break  bread." — Am. Bible  Union. 

"  And  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  we  being 
assembled  to  break  bread." — Saivyer. 

"And  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  the 
disciples  met  together." — Doddridge  in  Gav.iphell 
and  3Iacknight's  Trans. 

"  And  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  v/e  having 
assembled." — Emphatic  Diaglott. 

We  think  the  reader  is  now  ready  to  admit 
that  the  traces  of  a  custom  which  relies  for  its 
existence  upon  an  original  text,  rendered  as  giv- 
en above  by  so  many  different  persons,  none  of 
whom  can  be  charged  with  favoring  the  seventh- 
day  Sabbath,  are,  to  say  the  least,  too  faint  to  be 
of  practical  argumentative  utility.  To  our  mind, 
the  inference  is  simply  this  :  Paul,  about  to  de- 
part on  his  journey  to  Jerusalem,  appointed,  for 
himself  and  his  companions  and  the  disciples  at 
Troas,  a  final  meeting,  at  which  it  was  announced 
that  the  Eucharist  would  be  celebrated.  At  this 
meeting,  all  the  parties  came  together,  agreeably 
to  the  announcement  previously  made,  and  par- 
took of  the  Lord's  supper.  A  fitting  close  of  a 
week  of  apostolic  labor  in  an  Asiatic  city. 

The  next  item  worthy  of  our  attention  is  found 
in  the  hypothesis,  that,  during  the  time  Paul  was 
at  Troas,  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  was  passed 
by  without  any  religious  meeting  occurring  there- 


bUNDAY    AND    THE    SAEUATIJ.  189 

upon ;  and  that  Paul  waited  until  the  arrival  of 
the  first  day,  because  that  was  the  one  on  which 
the  meetings  of  the  church  were  regularly  held. 
How  a  writer  so  intimately  acquainted  with  the 
character  and  labors  of  St.  Paul,  as  the  individual 
in  question  undoubtedly  is,  could  draw  the  infer- 
ence whicli  he  has,  is  more  than  we  can  fathom. 
Who,  that  has  read  the  histoiy  of  a  man  whose 
nervous  activity  drove  him  to  dispute  daily  in 
the  school  of  Tyrannus  (Acts  19  : 9),  and  to  seek 
every  opportunity  for  the  presentatian  of  his 
gospel  to  the  Jews  in  their  synagogues,  and  the 
Greeks  in  their  places  of  public  gathering,  could 
be  induced  to  believe  that  he  could  remain  for 
seven  long  days  in  the  city  of  Troas  without  a 
solitary  religious  assembly,  until  the  expiration  of 
that  time  ?  And  yet  this  is  the  very  decision 
whicli  we  are  called  upon  to  indorse.  Before  we 
can  do  this,  however,  v/e  ask  for  the  proof.  The 
paiswer  is,  it  must  be  so,  because  the  record  con- 
tains no  account  of  the  holding  of  such  meetings 
until  the  lirst  day  of  the  week. 

But  is  tliis  satisfactory  ?  Do  not  all  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case,  as  well  as  the  tempera- 
ment and  character  of  Paul,  render  certain  the 
fact  that  such  meetings  were  held,  even  though 
it  is  not  stated  in  so  many  words  ?  Paul  with  a 
Christian  church  at  Troas  for  one  week,  and 
not  preach  to  them!  Impossible.  To  show  the 
vrriter  that  the  mention  of  religious  meetins2^s  in 
a  brief  history  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  prove 


190  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

that  they  occuiTed  on  a  given  day,  or  on  stated 
days,  let  me  call  his  attention  to  the  fact,  that, 
between  the  day  of  Pentecost  and  the  meeting  at 
Troas,  according  to  his  own  showing,  there  were 
at  least  twenty-six  intervening  years ;  that  dur- 
ing those  years,  agreeably  to  his  view,  there  were 
thirteen  hundred  and  fifty-two  first-days,  all  of 
which  were  holy  time,  and  nearly  all  of  whicli 
must  have  been  honored  by  stated  meetings  on 
the  part  of  the  apostles ;  and  yet,  out  of  that 
whole  number,  he  only  claims  to  produce  the 
record  of  one  solitary  day  on  which  such  meet- 
ing: occurred.  Vf  hat  are  the  facts,  then  ?  Paul 
probably  preached  every  day  of  the  seven,  while 
he  was  at  Troas.  Do  you  ask  why  the  account 
is  not  given  of  such  meetings  in  the  book  of  the 
Acts  ?  I  answer  that  the  Holy  Spirit  Avas  giv- 
ing, through  Luke,  a  succinct  history  of  the  more 
striking  occurrences  which  transpired  in  their 
travels.  The  story  of  the  first-day  meeting  at 
Troas  found  its  way  into  the  sacred  narrative, 
because  its  importance  to  after  generations  was 
enhanced  by  the  accidental  fall,  and  the  miracu- 
lous restoration  to  life  of  Eutychus,  and  perhaps 
by  other  facts  connected  with  that  event,  of  equal 
interest.  I  think  that  one  of  them  was  a  dispo- 
sition on  the  part  of  God  to  provide  his  com- 
mandment-keeping servants  in  succeeding  gene- 
rations with  a  passage  in  the  life  of  Paul,  which 
should  forever  silence  the  cavils  of  men  who 
should  undertake  to  belittle  his  ancient  Sabbath, 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SABDATII.  191 

and  to  foist  into  its  place  a  day  which  He  never 
commanded.  This  we  will  farther  consider  in 
our  next  point. 

Having  endeavored  to  establish  the  point  that 
the  seventh-day  Sabbath  was  not  observed  at 
Troas,  an  effort  is  made  to  show  that  a  change  of 
time  had  occurred,  so  that  Luke,  in  giving  his  ac- 
count of  the  transactions  mentioned  above,  treat- 
ed the  day  as  commencing  and  ending,  not  ac- 
cordini^  to  the  Jewish  method,  with  the  settino^ 
of  the  sun,  but  after  the  Roman  fashion,  with 
midnight.  The  reader  will  readily  discover  the 
object  to  be  gained  by  this  maneuver,  if  such  I 
may  be  allowed  to  call  it.  We  had  insisted  that 
the  first  day  of  the  week  commenced  at  sunset ; 
that  Paul  met  with  the  disciples  in  the  dark  por- 
tion of  that  day  (verse  8),  preached  to  them  dur- 
ing that  night,  and  on  the  next  morning  com- 
menced a  journey  of  nineteen  and  a  half  miles 
on  foot,  on  that  which  answered  to  the  daylight 
portion  of  our  Sunday.  This,  if  true,  with  the 
majority  of  readers,  w^ould  have  forever  settled 
the  question  that  Paul  did  not  believe  in  first- 
day  sanctity.  A  remedy,  therefore,  must  be  had. 
The  gentleman  thinks  he  has  found  one.  That 
he  has  made  a  desperate  effort  to  obtain  it,  we 
are  compelled  to  admit.  No  man,  it  seems  to  us, 
would  ever  resort  to  an  experiment  so  hazardous, 
who  did  not  find  himself  in  the  stress  of  a  situa- 
tion which  otherwise  would  be  utterly  insupport- 
able.    With  the  most  deliberate  calculation,  and 


192  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

in  tlie  face  of  authority  which  he  himself  highly 
honors,  he  has  decided  that  the  journey  in  ques- 
tion occurred  on  the  second  day  of  the  week,  in- 
stead of  the  first,  which  ended  at  twelve  o'clock 
the  previous  niglit.  Well,  suppose  we  admit,  for 
a  moment,  that  this  was  true  ;  what  then  ?  The 
Sunday  is  thereby  rescued  from  profanation  by 
Paul ;  but  it  is  also  true  that  the  second  day  of 
the  week  is  thereby  honored  with  the  meeting  of 
a  Christian  church,  and  that  it  was  it,  and  not 
the  first,  after  all,  which  was  honored  by  the 
breaking  of  bread  during  its  hours.  *  So  much 
for  some  of  the  consequences  of  the  position,  if 
well  taken. 

But  nov/  let  us  turn  to  the  argument  for  the 
change.  Is  it  really  true  that  Roman,  and  not 
Jewish,  time,  is  employed  in  a  portion  of  the 
New  Testament  ?  If  so,  the  perplexities  of  the 
situation  are  very  great.  How  shall  we  know 
v/hen  to  apply  the  one,  and  when  the  other  ? 
How  can  we  tell  precisely  where  the  dividing 
line  should  be  drawn  ?  We  hope,  in  all  con- 
science, independently  of  the  question  at  issue, 
that  the  writer  is  not  correct.  He  seems  to  find 
the  first  intimation  of  a  change  in  the  gospels. 
Matt.  28  : 1,  and  John  20  :  19,  are  referred  to  in 

*  The  honoring  of  the  second  day  here  alluded  to  rests  upon 
the  hypothesis  that  the  breaking  of  bread  spoken  of  in  Acts  20  : 
11,  answers  to  the  Lord's  supper.  It  is,  however,  by  no  means 
certain  that  this  was  the  case,  since  scholars  differ  widely  in  opin- 
ion respecting  the  matter;  some  holding  to  the  opinion  that  ref- 
erence was  made  to  the  Lord's  supper,  and  others  to  the  view  that 
the  breaking  of  bread  referred  merely  to  a  common  meal. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SAEBATH.  l'J3 

support  of  his  view.  Nov/  suppose  we  concede 
for  a  time  the  point  which  he  desires,  and  admit 
that  these  passages  prove  the  use  in  them  of  Ro- 
man time ;  also  that,  as  he  claims,  the  meetincr 
spoken  of  in  John  20  :  19,  occurred  in  the  even- 
ing (Roman  time),  and  after  the  coming  on  of 
darkness.  This  done,  we  inquire.  Was  it  a  Jew- 
ish day  or  a  Roman  day  that  was  sanctified  by 
the  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  his  aY)pearance  to 
his  assembled  disciples  ?  We  think  that  few  will 
dispute  that  it  was  a  Jewish  day. 

But  when  did  the  Jewish  day  commence  ?  The 
undeniable  answer  is.  At  sunset.  But  when  did 
Christ  appear  to  the  disciples,  according  to  Ro- 
man time,  as  argued  ?  We  answer.  In  the  dark- 
ness of  the  evening,  and,  therefore,  after  the  end- 
ing of  the  Jewish  first  day.  What  is  the  neces- 
sary conclusion  ?  We  reply,  One  of  two  things. 
1.  Either  that  the  visit  of  Christ  had  no  refer- 
ence to  the  sanctity  of  the  day  on  which  it  oc- 
curred ;  or  2.  That  it  was  designed  to  honor  the 
second  day  of  the  Jewish  week.  We  leave  the 
vrriter  in  question  to  take  whichever  horn  of  this 
dilemma  he  pleases.  If  he  should  insist  that 
John  employed  Roman  time,  then  all  which  he 
has  said  in  reference  to  the  effect  of  the  visit  of 
Christ  upon  the  first  day  of  the  Jewish  week  is 
emptied  of  all  force.  Never  was  self-stultifica- 
tion more  complete.  In  his  effort  to  escape  from 
the  paws  of  the  Trojan  bear  (secular  travel  on 

Cou.  Am.  13  B 


194  CONSTITUTIOXAL    AMENDMENT. 

Sunday),  the  writer  has  thrown  himself  into  the 
jaws  of  the  lion  (no  Scripture  pi'ecedent  for  Sun- 
day-keeping). For,  if  he  is  right  in  supposing 
that  the  meeting  in  John  20 :  19,  occurred  on  the 
Roman  evening  of  that  day — that  is,  after  sunset, 
and  the  coming  on  of  darkness — then,  of  course, 
it  did  not  transpire  on  the  Jewish  first  day  of  the 
week,  wdiich  had  previously  ended,  according  to 
his  own  admission,  at  the  going  down  of  the  sun; 
but  it  actually  took  place  after  the  commence- 
ment of  the  second  day  of  the  Jewish  week. 

Not  only  so,  but  the  second  meeting  of  Christ 
with  his  disciples  (after  eight  days),  according  to 
his  own  reasoning,  must  have  fallen  on  the  second 
Jewish  day  of  the  next  week.  And,  finally,  ac- 
cepting his  logic  that  the  meeting  of  Acts  20 : 7, 
also  fell  on  the  Ronian  evening  of  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  that  precedent,  so  long  cherished,  and 
so  often  cited,  is  now  forever  disposed  of,  since  it, 
too,  illustrates  the  second  Jewish  day  of  the 
week,  and  not  the  first,  if,  indeed,  it  adds  luster 
to  any.  But,  reader,  it  would  be  neither  Chris- 
tian nor  manly  to  adopt  an  exegesis  of  Scripture 
presented  by  an  opponent,  simply  because  such 
an  exegesis  would  j)rove  his  overthrow.  Truth 
is  worth  more  than  mere  victory.  The  gentle- 
man has  made  a  mistake  in  deciding  that  Roman 
time  is  employed  in  the  Bible,  and  that  mistake 
has  brought  him  to  confusion.  But  now  we  pro- 
pose to  show  that  Roman  time  is  not  employed, 
even  thous^h  in  so  doino^  we  shall  assist  liim  out 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  '195 

of  his  trouble  for  the  time  being.  Let  no  one 
suppose,  however,  that  the  relief  which  we  shall 
afford  him  will  be  permanent,  for,  unfortunately 
for  him,  we  shall  rescue  him  from  one  death  sim- 
ply to  deliver  him  to  another. 

The  whole  question  turns  upon  the  commence- 
ment and  end  of  the  Bible  day.  If  it  can  be 
shown  that  it  began  and  terminated  with  the 
setting  of  the  sun,  then,  beyond  all  dispute,  the 
meeting  in  Troas  occurred  at  the  commencement 
of  tlie  first  day  of  the  week,  at  the  coming  on  of 
darkness,  the  only  period  in  that  day  when  lights 
could  be  employed  to  advantage  (verse  8).  We 
proceed,  therefore,  to  our  task.  We  have  hereto- 
fore quoted  from  the  Tract  Society's  Bible  Dic- 
tionary, under  the  article,  day,  to  prove  a  general 
agreement  that  the  Hebrews  commenced  and 
ended  their  day  with  the  setting  of  the  sun.  In 
addition  to  this,  we  might  refer  the  reader  to 
Smith's  Comprehensive  Dictionary  of  the  Bible 
on  the  same  subject.  In  fact,  we  might  multiply 
authorities  without  end;  but  this  is  not  necessary 
here.  By  turning  to  Genesis,  chapter  1,  the  reader 
w^ill  find  that  God  measured  the  day  by  "the 
evening  and  the  morning"  (darkness  and  light). 
He  will  here  observe  that  with  the  ancient  He- 
brews the  whole  night  preceded  the  day  to  which 
it  belonged.  Advancing  to  Leviticus  23  :  32,  he 
will  there  read  the  command  of  God,  that  the 
people  should  keep  their  Sabbaths  "  from  even 
to  even."     But  as  the  Sabbath  was  the  last  day 


196    ,  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

of  tlie  week,  and  was  to  commence  and  end  wltli 
the  evening,  he  will  discover  that  ifc  will  be  nec- 
essary that  all  the  other  days  should  commence 
and  end  in  the  same  manner. 

Passing  now  to  the  New  Testament,  he  will 
find  the  same  custom  prevailing  in  the  days  of 
our  Lord.  Nay,  more ;  he  will  there  obtain  the 
authority  of  Luke  himself,  who  wrote  the  book 
of  Acts,  for  believing  that  Christ  and  the  Jews 
followed  that  system  of  beginning  and  ending 
the  day  which  God  had  inaugurated  in  the  out- 
set. We  read  in  Luke  4  :  40  :  "  Now  when  the 
sun  was  setting,  all  they  that  had  any  sick  with 
divers  diseases,  brought  them  unto  him  ;  and  he 
laid  his  hands  on  every  one  of  them,  and  healed 
them."  By  tracing  back  the  event,  as  given  by 
Luke,  in  its  parallel,  as  found  in  Mark  1,  we  find 
that  Christ  was  healing  in  the  synagogue  on  the 
Sabbath  day,  and  that  he  subsequently  repaired 
to  the  house  of  Peter,  and  healed  his  wife's  moth- 
er ;  and  that,  "  at  even,  when  the  sun  did  set," 
the  Jews  brought  to  him  all  those  that  were  dis- 
eased, and  possessed  with  devils,  for  the  purpose 
of  having  him  heal  them.  This,  however,  they 
could  not  have  done  on  the  Sabbath  day,  accord- 
ing to  their  views  ;  therefore  they  prove  that  the 
custom  was  still  prevalent  among  them  of  end- 
ing the  days  v/ith  the  setting  of  the  sun.  But, 
furthermore,  has  it  not  been  argued  by  the  writer 
himself,  that  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  coinci- 
dent with  the  first  day  of  the  v/eek  ?     Wc  think 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SABBATH.  197 

this  will  hardly  be  disputed.  If  it  be  true,  how- 
ever, and  if  the  logic  be  sound,  that  the  Spirit 
which  was  poured  out  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
was  designed  to  indicate  that  it  corresponded 
with  the  Christian  Sabbath,  then  we  need  not  ar- 
gue further,  for  no  man  will  deny  that  that  day 
was  emphatically  Jewish  in  its  beginning  and 
ending. 

This  array  of  Scripture  testimony,  gleaned  from 
a  history  of  4000  years,  if  met  at  all,  it  will  be 
necessary  that  it  should  be  done  by  clear  and 
emphatic  statements  emanating  from  the  same 
source  from  which  the  authorities  in  question  are 
drawn.  Has  the  gentleman  furnished  any  such 
evidence  ?  The  reader  will  readily  discover  that 
he  has  not.  The  only  texts  brought  forward  in 
support  of  the  change  upon  which  he  insists  are 
John  20  :  19,  and  Matt.  28  : 1.  In  reference  to 
the  first  of  these,  it  will  only  be  required  that 
attention  should  be  called  to  the  fact  thajt,  with 
the  Hebrews,  each  day  had  two  evenings.  (Ex- 
odus 12  :  6,  margin;  and  Numbers  9  :  3,  a.nd  28  : 
4,  margin.)  On  this  point,  the  Bible  Dictionary 
says :  "The  Hebrews  reckoned  two  evenings  in 
each  day.  *  *  *  According  to  the  Karaites, 
this  time  between  the  evenings  is  the  interval 
from  sunset  to  complete  darkness,  that  is,  the 
evening  twilight.  According  to  the  Pharisees 
and  the  Rabbins,  the  fii'st  evening  began  w^hen 
the  sun  inclined  to  descend  more  rapidly ;  that  is, 
at  the  ninth  hour  ;  while  the  second  or  real  even- 


198  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

ing  commenced  at  sunset."  (Art.  Evening.)  Now 
let  it  be  supposed  that  Christ  met  with  his  dis- 
ciples somewhere  between  three  o'clock  and  sun- 
set, on  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  and  the 
statement  that  he  met  with  them  the  "  same  day 
at  evening,"  is  at  once  verified,  and  the  necessity 
for  the  supposition  of  a  change  of  time  disappears. 

In  explanation  of  Matt.  28  :  1,  we  cannot  do 
better,  perhaps,  than  to  append  the  following 
comment  from  Albert  Barnes:  '' The  word  end, 
here  means  the  seane  as  after  the  Sabbath ;  i.  e., 
after  the  Sabbath  was  fully  completed,  or  fin- 
ished, and  may  be  expressed  in  the  following- 
manner  :  '  In  the  night  following  the  Sabbath  ; 
for  the  Sabbath  closed  at  sunset,  as  it  began  to 
dawn  toward  the  first  day  of  the  week.' "  That 
Mr.  Barnes  is  right  in  his  criticism,  will  become 
apparent  when  we  compare  Matt.  28  :  1,  with 
the  parallel  passage  in  Mark  16 : 1,  2,  where  the 
same  historic  fact  is  introduced  Vv^ith  these  words : 
"  When  the  Sabbath  was  past."  A  complete  har- 
mony is  thus  preserved  between  the  two  evan- 
gelists, and  all  requisition  for  the  extreme  resort 
to  the  hypothesis  of  a  sudden  and  unprecedented 
employment  of  the  Roman  system  for  the  com- 
puta^tion  of  time  is  dispensed  with. 

As  it  regards  the  objection,  which  is  based 
upon  the  use  made  in  Acts  20  :  7,  of  the  words, 
"  on  the  morrow,"  we  reply  that  it  is  not  well 
taken.  That  it  was  perfectly  compatible  with  a 
Jewish  custom,  when  speaking  of  the  daylight 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  199 

portion  of  any  day  from,  the  stand-point  of  the 
previous  evening,  to  allude  to  it  as  "the  morrow,*' 
we  cite  the  following  passages :  "  Then  the  sol- 
diers, as  it  was  commanded  them,  took  Paul,  and 
brought  him  by  night  to  Antipatris.  On  the 
onorroiu  they  left  the  horsemen  to  go  with  him, 
and  returned  to  the  castle."  Acts  23  :  SI,  32. 
"  Saul  also  sent  messengers  unto  David's  house, 
to  watch  him,  and  to  slay  him  in  the  morning ; 
and  Michal,  David's  wife,  told  him,  saying,  If  thou 
save  not  thy  life  to-night,  to-inorroiv  thou  shalt 
be  slain."     1  Samuel  19:11. 

In  addition  to  the  above  texts,  we  might  quote 
the  authority  of  Mr.  Howson,  who  is  so  justly 
complimented  for  his  scholarship  by  the  writer. 
He  cannot  be  charored  with  leanino-  toward  our 
views  of  the  Sabbath,  and,  therefore,  if  he  had 
any  bias  in  the  case,  it  would  be  against,  and  not 
in  favor  of,  the  position  which  we  are  trying  to 
maintain.  If  there  was  really  any  force  in  the 
criticism  which  is  offered  respecting  the  use  of 
the  preposition  and  the  term  with  which  it  is 
connected,  assuredly  the  discriminating  eye  of 
this  gentleman  would  not  have  allowed  it  to  es- 
cape detection.  Nevertheless,  he,  as  the  writer 
admits,  deliberately  decides,  while  examining  at 
length  the  very  passages  now  before  us,  that  the 
events  there  spoken  of,  journey  and  all,  did  trans- 
pire on  the  Sunday.  In  doing  so,  it  follows,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  that  he  did  not  regjard  the  diffi- 
culty which  is  urged  concerning  the  words,  "  on 
the  morrow,"  as  one  at  all  formidable. 


200  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

Thus  much  by  way  of  a  brief  refutation  of  the 
diversity  theory  for  the  commencing  of  the  days 
of  the  Bible.  We  have  seen  heretofore,  that,  if 
the  advocate  of  this  theory  v/ere  right  and  we 
wrong,  he  has  lost  to  his  cause  the  three  prece- 
dental  meetings  of  John  20  :  19,  John  20  :  26,  and 
Acts  20  : 7,  since  they  occurred  on  the  second, 
and  not  the  first,  Jewish  day  of  the  week.  Let 
us  now  view  the  situation  from  the  stand-point 
of  one  who  believes  that  the  sacred,  instead  of 
the  heathen,  method  is  followed  consistently 
throughout  the  Scriptures.  In  Acts  20  :  7,  the 
text  which  is  passing  under  review,  it  is  said  that 
there  was  a  meeting  held  upon  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  and  that  Paul  preached  until  midnight. 
It  now  becomes  important  to  know  on  what  por- 
tion of  the  first  day  of  the  week  this  meeting 
fell.  By  examining  the  record,  we  find  the  state- 
ment that  there  were  many  lights  employed  in 
the  chamber  where  they  were  gathered.  Wo 
know,  therefore,  tliat  the  meeting  must  have 
taken  place  during  the  dark  portion  of  the  first 
day  of  the  week.  But  as  we  have  seen  that  the 
Jewish  day  commenced  with  sunset,  the  only 
hours  of  darkness  which  belong  to  it  were  to  be 
found  betvv^een  that  time  and  the  next  morning. 
Advancing,  we  learn  that,  having  spent  the  night 
in  preaching,  breaking  of  bread,  &c.,  the  apostle 
devoted  the  daylight  portion  of  the  first  day  of 
the  week  to  the  accomplishment  of  a  journey  of 
nineteen  and  a  half  miles,  while  his  companions 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SACBATII.  201 

sailed  the  vessel  a  greater  distance  round  the 
headland  to  Assos.  Here,  then,  is  apostolic  ex- 
ample for  travel  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
The  writer  endeavored  to  escape  this  conclusion, 
by  asserting  that  the  meeting  in  question  and 
the  travel  took  place  on  the  second  day  of  the 
week.  This  view,  v/e  have  met,  and  successfully 
answered.  The  record  states  that  it  was  upon 
the  first  day  of  the  week  when  they  came  to- 
gether. It  then  proceeds  to  give  a  connected  ac- 
count of  what  transpired  on  that  day,  and  among 
other  things,  is  found  the  story  of  Pa.ul  and  his 
companions  starting  for  Jerusalem.  Now,  if  the 
events  related  did  really  transpire  on  two  days, 
instead  of  on  one  merely,  as  would  naturally  be 
inferred  from  the  context,  the  burden  of  the 
proof  is  with  our  opponent.  We  rest  the  mat- 
ter, therefore,  right  here.  The  only  attempt 
which  he  has  made  has  been  a  complete  failure. 
That  he  thought  it  was  the  best  he  could  do  un- 
der the  circumstances,  we  doubt  not. 

There  remains  nov%^  no  item  of  difierence  be- 
tween ourselves  and  the  writer  in  the  Statesman 
which  should  occupy  us  longer.  For,  betv^een 
him  and  myself  there  is  no  room  for  dispute  re- 
specting the  morality  of  traveling  on  the  Sab- 
bath, since,  according  to  liis  own  confession,  the 
object  which  Paul  had  in  remaining  at  Troas  was 
that  of  a  good  "  Sabhath-keeij'ing  Christian,"  who 
was  unv/illing  to  violate  the  sacredness  of  holy 
time  by  the  performance  of  secular  labor.    Here, 


202  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

then,  we  pause.  As  we  do  so,  we  appeal  to  the 
judgment  of  the  candid  men  and  women  who 
have  read  the  criticism  of  our  friend  and  our  re- 
ply thereto.  Did  Paul  conscientiously  regard 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  while  traveling  on  foot 
nineteen  and  a  half  miles  upon  it,  and  did  Luke 
and  his  six  companions,  in  sailing  a  much  greater 
distance  on  the  same  hours,  transgress  the  law  of 
God,  and  ignore  the  example  of  Christ;  or,  did 
they  look  upon  the  first  day  cf  the  w^eek  as  one 
which  God  had  given  to  man  for  the  purposes  of 
labor  and  travel  ?  If  you  still  decide  that  it  was 
holy  time,  you  must  be  able  to  reconcile  their  ac- 
tion with  this  theory.  This,  however,  you  can 
never  do.  If,  on  the  contrary,  you  shall  deter- 
mine that  they  treated  it  as  a  secular  day,  then  it 
remains  so  still,  for  its  character  has  not  chano-ed 
from  that  day  to  this. 


STATESMAN'S    REPLY. 


-(*.2r.ticijE     six:.' 


TESTIMONY   OF    PAUL   AND    JOHN    TO    THE    FIRST- 
DAY    SABBATH. 

Two  important  portions  of  the  inspired  records 
remain  to  be  considered.  The  first  of  these  reads 
as  follows  :  "  Now  concerning  the  collection  for 
the  saints,  as  I  have  given  order  to  the  churches 
of  Galatia,  even  so  do  ye.     Upon  the  first  day  of 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  203 

the  week  let  every  one  of  3^)11  lay  by  him  in 
store,  as  God  hath  prospered  him,  that  there  be 
no  gatherings  when  I  come."     (1  Cor.  16  : 1,  2.) 

From  this  passage  it  is  clear  that  the  churches 
of  Galatia,  as  well  as  the  church  at  Corinth,  or 
that  Christians  generally,  were  required  to  set 
apart  a  proportion  of  their  worldly  goods,  as 
God  prospered  them,  for  benevolent  purposes.  It 
is  also  clear  that  the  act  of  setting  apart  the  re- 
quired proportion  of  means  Avas  to  be  performed 
statedly,  every  week,  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week. 

V/hatever  may  be  the  correct  interpretation  of 
the  words,  "  lay  by  him  in  store,"  enough  is  be- 
yond all  doubt  and  agreed  upon  by  all,  to  show 
that  the  first  day  of  the  week  v/as  regarded  by 
the  apostle  and  the  Christian  churches  as  a  spe- 
cial day,  and  one  more  fitting  than  others  for  the 
benevolent  and  religious  duty  enjoined. 

The  phrase  rendered  in  our  version  "  by  him," 
is  unquestionably  an  idiomatic  Greek  expression 
for  "  at  home."  (Compare  Luke  24  :  12,  and  John 
20  :  10.)  And  even  if  we  understand  this  phrase 
to  be  connected  with  the  word  rendered,  "in 
store,"  v/hich  is  a  participle  signifying  "  treasur- 
ing up,"  the  proof  of  first-day  sacred  observance 
is  still  clear  and  strong.  But  the  true  connection 
of  the  words,  "at  home,"  is  with  what  precedes. 
"  Let  every  one  place  or  devote  at  home."  Place 
what  ?  The  answer  is  not  hard  to  find — a  pro- 
portion of  the  weekly  earnings ;  a  suitable  part 
of  what  God  in  his  bounty  had  given.  When 
this  proportion  was  separated  by  each  Christian 
at  home,  from  the  rest  of  his  weekly  earnings,  it 
was  to  be  treasured  up.  But  where  ?  This  is 
the  important  question.     Where  was  the  money 


204  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

each  Cliristian  set  apart  at  lioiiie  on  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  from  his  Vv^eekly  receipts,  to  be  kept 
in  store  ?  It  appears  that  tliis  treasuring  up  was 
not  at  each  Christian's  home  : 

1.  Because  the  phrase,  "at  home,"  grammatic- 
ally connects,  not  with  the  word  "  treasuring," 
but  with  the  preceding  verb.  This  verb  does 
not  mean  "  lay  by,"  but  "  lay,"  or  "  place."  The 
preposition  rendered  "  by  "  is  part  of  the  phrase, 
*'  at  home."  If  it  is  insisted  that  the  idea  of 
treasuring  in  store  is  in  the  word  rendered  "  lay," 
then  we  have  this  tautology :  "  Let  every  one 
place  in  store  or  lay  by  at  home,  placing  in 
store."     Paul  did  not  write  in  this  way. 

2.  The  first  day  of  the  week  must  have  of- 
fered a  special  facility  for  doing  wl^at  was  re- 
quired. True,  if  nothing  more  is  meant  than 
laying  by  at  home,  even  that  marks  the  first  day 
with  distinguishing  honor.  But  the  placing  or 
putting  of  God's  portion  by  itself,  separated  from 
the  remainder  of  the  receipts  of  the  past  week,  on 
each  first-day,  in  each  Christian's  home,  was  in 
order  to  something  else,  for  wdiich  the  first  day 
alone  gave  opportunity.  On  that  day,  as  we 
have  learned  from  Acts  20  :  7,  and  other  portions 
of  Scripture,  Christians  were  accustomed  to  meet 
for  public  religious  services,  and  at  these  public 
gatherings,  each  Christian  put  into  the  treasury 
of  the  church  what  he  had  set  apart  at  home 
from  the  rest  of  the  gains  of  the  week. 

3.  The  most  conclusive  argument,  however,  is 
drawn  from  the  end  that  Paul  desired  to  accom- 
plish. He  states  expressly  that  his  aim  in  giv- 
ing his  directions  was  to  avoid  the  necessity  of 
gatherings  or  collections  when  he  should  come. 
The  force  of  this  consideration  is  evaded  by  ex- 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABEATil.  205 

plaining  the  apostle's  words  as  meaning  "  small 
collections."  But  if  every  Christian  had  his 
money  laid  by  at  home,  whether  it  Vv'ere  much  or 
little,  the  "  collections "  would  still  have  to  be 
made.  Each  Christian,  it  is  true,  would  have  his 
sum  already  made  up,  and  would  need  to  make 
no  personal  gathering.  But  the  apostle's  word 
is  much  more  naturally  and  fittingly  applied  to 
collections  on  a  larger  and  wider  scale.  And  to 
effect  the  apostle's  end,  and  avoid  such  collec- 
tions at  his  coming,  the  Corinthians,  like  the 
Galatians,  were  to  make  a  collection  every  Lord's 
day,  of  what  each  one  at  home  had  set  apart  or 
placed  aside  from  the  proceeds  of  his  business 
during  the  preceding  week.  In  no  other  way 
would  the  moneys  needed  be  in  perfect  readiness 
for  the  apostle.  If  left  in  the  hands  of  individ- 
uals scattered  around,  there  would  be  uncertainty 
about  the  apostle's  receipt  of  them,  and  there 
would  still  be  trouble  in  connection  with  collec- 
tions on  his  arrival.  But  with  the  moneys  al- 
ready gathered,  at  the  I'egular  weekly  meetings, 
into  the  common  treasury  of  the  church,  and 
there  waiting  his  coming,  his  aim  is  satisfactorily 
accomplished. 

The  only  remaining  passage  is  Rev.  1 :  10  : 
"  I  was  in  the  Spirit  on  the  Lord's  day."  It 
has  been  admitted  by  opponents  of  the  first-day 
Sabbath,  that  if,  by  the  Lord's  day  in  this  pas- 
sage, the  first  da.y  of  the  week  is  meant,  their 
cause  is  lost.  And  lost  it  is ;  for  no  other  day 
can.  be  meant.  Three  interpretations  have  been 
given  of  John's  words  : — 

1.  By  the  Lord's  day  is  meant  the  day  of 
Judgment.  Wetstein,  in  his  elaborate  edition  of 
the  Greek  New  Testament,  in  tlie  year  17-52,  first 


20G  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

advanced  this  view.  Plis  comment  is ;  "  Hunc 
diem  judicii  vidit  in  spiritu ;  i.  e.,  prsevidit  re- 
presentatum."  "  John  saw  in  Spirit  the  day  of 
Judgment ;  that  is,  he  foresaw  it  represented." 
The  phrase,  "  the  day  of  the  Lord,"  does  mean  in 
the  Scriptures  the  day  of  Judgment.  But  that 
phrase  is  different  from  the  one  here  employed. 
The  literal  rendering  of  the  former  is,  "  the  day  of 
the  Lord."  The  literal  rendering  of  the  other  is, 
"  the  dominical  day."  This  was  not  a  day  fore- 
seen, but  a  day  on  which  John  was  in  the 
Spirit — a  day  of  weekly  recurrence  which  the 
Lord  claims  as  his  own,  as  he  claims  the  domin- 
ical supper. 

2.  By  the  Lord's  day,  it  is  maintained  again, 
is  meant  the  seventh-day  Sabbath.  In  support  of 
this  view  it  is  said  that  the  phrase  employed  by 
John  corresponds  with  such  Old-Testament  ex- 
pressions as  "  a  Sabbath  to  the  Lord,"  and  with 
the  Saviour's  lanffuas^e  :  "  The  Son  of  man  is 
Lord  even  of  the  Sabbath."  But  the  very  fact 
that  the  seventh  day  had  a  v^^ell-known  and  dis- 
tinctive name  by  which  it  was  ahvays  designa- 
ted, is  strong  presumptive  proof  that  this  new 
and  unusual  phrase  used  by  John  cannot  apply 
to  it.  It  would  be  most  natural  to  suppose  that 
some  other  day  is  meant,  and  this  is  clearly 
proved  to  be  the  fact. 

3.  The  phrase,  the  Lord's  day,  was  the  com- 
mon expression  for  designating  the  first-day  Sab- 
bath from  John's  time  onward.  As  the  meal 
which  the  Lord  hallowed  as  his  own  was  called 
the  Lord's  supper,  so  the  day  hallowed  by  the 
Lord's  resurrection,  by  his  repeated  meeting 
with  his  disciples  after  rising  from  the  dead,  by 
the  descent  of  his  Spirit,  by  the  weekly  religious 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SAB15ATII.  207 

assemblies  of  his  people  with  their  communions, 
preaching  and  hearing  the  word,  prayers  and 
ahnsgiving,  was  properly  termed  the  Lord's  day. 
It  has  been  argued  on  the  other  side  of  the 
question  that  the  Lord  had  a  day,  and  but  one 
in  the  week,  called  specially  his  own.  But  as 
has  been  sho\Yn,  Jesus  himself,  alter  his  resurrec- 
tion, paid  no  regard  to  the  seventh  day.  His  dis- 
ciples did  not  observe  it.  It  could  not,  therefore, 
have  been  the  Lord's  day.  On  the  other  hand, 
Jesus  did  honor  the  first  day,  and  the  Chris- 
tian churches  everywhere  did  the  same ;  and 
thus  this  honored  day  is  the  only  one  of  which 
John  could  speak  when  he  said  he  was  "  in  the 
Spirit  on  the  Lord's  day."  By  this  name,  as  will 
be  seen  in  our  next  article,  the  first  day  of  the 
week  was  known  in  the  early  church. 


A    KEJOIXDEH 


"TESTIMONY   OF   PAUL    AND   JOHN   TO   THE 
FIRST-DAY   SABBATH." 

With  no  small  degree  of  interest  we  have  pe- 
rused the  article  entitled,  "  Testimony  of  Paul 
and  John  to  the  First-day  Sabbath."  The  two 
texts  which  it  brings  forward  in  defense  of  the 
theory  of  a  changed  Sabbath,  are  regarded  by 
the  friends  of  that  theory,  generally,  as  among 
the  strongest  of  its  supports.  The  first  of  them 
(1  Cor.  1(] :  1,  2),  we  had  assailed,  and  adduced  a 
criticism,   from   the   pen  of  Mr.  J.  "W.  Morton, 


2U8  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT, 

wliicli  was  of  great  importance.  In  it,  tlie  very 
stronghold  of  the  Sunday  argument  had  been 
fearlessly  attacked,  and,  to  our  mind,  carried  be- 
yond all  question.  The  writer  whom  we  quoted 
presented  twelve  versions  and  translations,  all  of 
which  clearly  sustained  the  position  that  the  ex- 
pression, "  by  him,"  was  equivalent  to  the  term, 
"  at  home."  If  this  were  true,  then  beyond  all 
dispute  the  Sunday  argument  had  been  denuded 
of  all  its  strength,  provided  it  ever  had  any;  for 
the  support  of  its  logic  Vv^as  the  assumption  that 
the  transaction  brought  to  view  in  this  text  was 
to  take  place  in  the  respective  assemblies  of  the 
saints. 

It  is,  therefore,  with  the  most  profound  satisfac- 
tion that — if  we  rightly  apprehend  the  remarks 
of  our  reviewer — we  accept  his  concession  of  the 
point  that  the  words,  ''by  him,"  do  indeed  answer 
to  a  Greek  idiom,  of  which  the  original  terms  are 
equivalent  to  the  expression,  "at  home."  This 
being  true,  vv^e  are  agreed  that  at  least  a  portion 
of  the  duty  which  Paul  commanded  was  to  be 
performed,  not  at  the  house  of  assembly,  but  at 
the  divelling  of  the  individual  Christian.  In 
other  words,  he  admits  that  the  money  which 
they  were  to  "  place  or  devote  "  to  charitable  pur- 
poses, was  first  to  be  estimated  and  separated 
while  yet  they  were  in  their  own  houses.  Hav- 
ing conceded  thus  much,  he  reasons  that  the  mon- 
ey was  to  be  carried  to  the  place  of  worship,  and 
laid  up  in  store,  or  deposited  among  the  collec- 


SUNDxVY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  209 

oions  regularly  made  on  tlie  first  day  of  the 
week.  In  order  to  sustain  this  view,  he  offers  a 
oTammatical  criticism  to  which  it  cannot  be  ob- 
jected that  it  is  not  drav/n  finely  enough  to  meet 
the  taste  of  the  most  fastidious.  But  the  writer 
does  not  seem  to  plant  himself  so  squarely  upon 
it  as  we  would  naturally  expect  one  would  Avho 
feels  that  he  is  standing  upon  solid  ground. 

The  for CG  of  his  logic  seems  to  be  drav/n  from 
the  object  which  Paul  had  in  view,  in  ordering 
beforehand  this  weekly  laying  aside  of  money 
for  the  poor  saints  at  Jerusalem.  The  writer 
thinks  that  the  evident  reference  of  Paul,  in  the 
words,  "that  there  be  no  gatherings  when  I 
come,"  is  to  contributions  to  be  taken  up  in  the 
conOT-eo'ation  when  he  should  have  reached  the 
place.  If  he  is  Avrong  in  this,  he  is  wi*ong  in  all ; 
for  no  one  will  dispute  that   money  coidd^'  be 

*This  point  is  an  important  one  ;  and  as  we  are  anxious  to  sat- 
isfy the  reader  that  it  is  well  taken,  we  append  the  following  re- 
marks of  Albert  Barnes,  who — though  agreeing  with  the  writer 
in  the  Statesman,  that  this  passage  furnishes  proof  for  Sunday 
observance — nevertheless  frankly  concedes,  as  will  be  seen,  that 
the  construction  of  the  original  phrase  for  "treasuring  up,"  is 
such  as  to  admit  of  the  idea  that  the  work  was  to  be  done  at 
home.  He  says  :  "The  phrase  in  Greek,  'treasuring  up,'  may 
mean  that  each  one  was  to  put  the  part  which  he  had  designated 
into  the  common  treasury.  This  interpretation  seems  to  be  de- 
manded by  the  latter  part  of  the  verse.  They  were  to  lay  it  by, 
and  to  put  it  into  the  common  treasury,  that  there  might  be  no 
trouble  of  collecting  when  he  should  come.  Or,  it  may,  perhaps, 
mean  that  they  were  individually  to  tnasure  it  vp,  having  desig- 
nated in  their  own  minds  the  sum  which  they  could  give,  and 
have  it  in  readiness  when  he  should  conr.e." 

Con.  Am.  14  B 


210  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

"  laid  by  in  store  "  at  Jtome,  as  well  as  in  the 
cliureh,  since  to  lay  by  in  store,  is  to  put  in  some 
safe  and  accessible  place. 

Right  here,  then,  we  inquire,  What  were  the 
"  gatherings  "  which  Paul  sought  to  avoid  on  his 
arrival  ?  They  could  refer  to  but  one  of  two 
things ;  either,  first,  the  collection  of  moneys  in 
the  cliurch ;  or,  secondly,  the  collecting  of  them 
by  individuals  from  those  Avho  were  indebted  to 
them.  That  the  first  was  not  the  sense  in  which 
Paul  employed  the  word,  we  submit  is  apparent, 
from  the  fact  that  the  end  to  be  gained  by  writ- 
ing months  beforehand,  in  order  to  prevent  the 
taking  up  of  a  collection  in  the  church,  was  not 
commensurate  with  the  dignity  which  is  given 
to  it  by  so  prominent  a  place  in  the  sacred  epis- 
tle. So  far  as  the  collection  itself  was  concerned, 
it  could  have  been  brought  about,  unquestiona- 
bly, within  the  space  of  fifteen  minutes.  The 
amount  of  time,  therefore,  which  it  would  con- 
sume, is  too  insignificant  to  be  worthy  of  mention. 

Again,  as  it  regards  the  moral  complexion  of 
the  act,  it  wall  not  be  objected  by  our  reviewer 
that  it  was  to  be  avoided  from  any  scruples  in  that 
direction,  since  he  believes  tliat  such  collections 
were  taken  up  on  every  first  day  of  the  week. 
On  the  other  hand,  taking  the  second  view  as 
being  the  one  which  properly  expresses  the  facts, 
we  find  that  it  is  in  perfect  harmony  w^ith  the 
circumstances  of  the  case,  and  consistent  with  the 
notion  that  Paul  had  a  sufiicient  motive  for  writ- 


SUNDAY    ANJ)    TIIK    SADIIATII.  211 

ing  before  hand,  as  be  did,  concerning  the  collec- 
tions. He  was  about  to  make  a  brief  visit  to 
Corinth.  How  long  he  should  remain,  he  could 
not  tell.  While  there,  he  wanted  the  undivided 
attention  of  the  people  to  be  given  to  religious 
purposes,  and  also  that  the  money  which  he  ex- 
pected, should  be  in  readiness,  so  that  no  delay 
might  be  necessary. 

This,  however,  could  not  be,  since,  not  know- 
ing the  exact  time  of  his  arrival,  they  would  not 
be  likely  to  have  it  on  hand  when  he  should 
come,  unless  they  laid  it  by,  weekly,  at  their 
homes.  Should  he,  therefore,  drop  in  upon  them 
suddenly,  they  would  be  thrown  into  a  confusion 
of  mind  illy  compatible  with  the  purposes  of  daily 
worship  during  his  visit,  since  they  would  be  an- 
noyed and  distracted  by  the  necessity  of  gather- 
ing from  this  direction  and  that,  the  amounts  of 
the  weekly  contribution  which  they  had  agreed 
to  make  for  the  benefit  of  the  sufferino-  saints  at 

o 

Jerusalem. 

But  once  more  :  Having  settled  the  point  that 
the  explanation  claimed  does  not  satisfactorily 
account  for  the  mention  of  the  subject  in  an  epis- 
tle, while  the  one  which  we  present  meets  the 
requirements  of  the  case  in  every  particular — 
since  it  both  supplies  the  money,  and  furnishes 
the  apostle  with  a  body  of  Christians  ready  to 
listen  to  the  preaching  of  the  word — let  us  look 
at  tlie  matter  from  another  stand-point. 

The  plan  proposed  by  Paul  could  have  been 


212  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

arrived  at  in  but  one  of  two  ways.  Every  Chris- 
tian was  expected,  either,  first,  to  give  a  fixed 
sum,  every  week,  of  an  amount  equal  to  that 
which  the  general  valuation  of  his  property 
would  require ;  or,  secondly,  he  was,  as  the  writ- 
er supposes,  to  pay  in  a  fluctuating  amount  week- 
ly, that  amount  to  he  determined  by  the  gains  or 
losses  of  the  week. 

We  will  suppose,  for  a  moment,  that  the  first 
theory  is  correct,  and  will  test  the  plan  in  ques- 
tion thereby.  While  doing  so,  for  convenience' 
sake,  we  will  employ  the  currency  of  our  own 
time.  Here  is  a  Corinthian  Christian  who  is 
worth,  say  810,000.  He  decides  that  he  will 
give,  for  the  ])urposes  mentioned,  ten  dollars  per 
week.  He  has  money  in  his  purse,  and  nothing 
to  prevent  his  doing  it  at  any  time.  Being 
anxious  to  obey  the  injunction  of  Paul,  he  pro- 
ceeds as  the  writer  suggests.  On  Sunday  morn- 
ing he  is  at  home,  knowing  just  what  he  must 
contribute  on  that  day,  when  he  goes  to  church, 
having  previously  decided  this  point.  The 
amount,  as  v/e  have  seen,  is  precisely  ten  dollars. 
But  Paul  says  he  must  do  something  with  it  "  at 
home,"  before  going  to  church.  What  was  he  to 
do  with  it  ?  The  writer  says,  "  to  place  or  de- 
vote it."  Well,  he  takes  out  his  purse ;  from  it 
he  extracts  just  ten  dollars.  He  holds  it  in  his 
fingers.  Now,  what  shall  he  do  with  it  ?  The 
writer  says  he  must  "  'place  or  devote  it."  Yes, 
but  we  inquire.  What  does  place  or  devote  meav, 


SUNDAY    AND    'I'lIK    SAnHATIf.  213 

in  such  a  connection  as  this  ?  In  other  words, 
What  shall  he  do  witli  the  money  at  home  ? 
Shall  lie  take  it  out,  and  turn  it  over,  and  look 
at  it,  and  put  it  back  into  his  purse  again,  and 
tlien  go  to  church  and  place  it  in  the  contribu- 
tion box  ?  We  answer  that  this  would  be  a 
solemn  farce.  To  say,  also,  that  having  taken  it 
out  of  his  purse  he  must  not  put  it  back  again, 
but  must  place  it  in  some  other  pocket,  and  then 
carry  it  to  church,  is  simply  ridiculous.  So  far, 
therefore,  as  the  men  were  concerned  whose 
property  was  fixed,  and  whose  contributions 
were  the  same,  weekly,  all  that  was  said  by  Paul 
about  "  devoting  or  placing  "  at  home  vras  pure 
nonsense,  in  the  light  of  the  exposition  offered.* 
Now  for  the  other  class,  or  the  men  of  fluctu- 
ating resources.  How  shall  they  proceed  ?  Were 
they  to  estimate  the  amount  of  their  weekly  gains, 
and  to  collect  in  the  sum,  on  the  last  day,  which 
they  Avere  to  give  on  the  first  day  of  the  v/eek  ? 
If  so,  then  in  their  cases,  as  well  as  in  those  of  the 
first  order,  the  whole  process  was  a  mere  sham,  an 
empty  and  meaningless  form.  For  they  also,  at 
their  homes,  would  simply  have  to  take  out  thei]* 

■••Instead  of  selecting  a  wealthy  person,  able  to  contribute  tea 
dollars  per  week,  as  has  been  done  above,  let  an  individual  be 
chosen  from  the  poorer  classes  of  Corinthians — say  from  among 
those  who  would  be  able  to  donate  oi)ly  twenty-five  cents  per 
week — and  the  reader  will  be  more  forcibly  impressed  with  the 
unreasonableness  of  that  construction  which  makes  it  necessary 
that  so  small  a  pittance  should  fiist  be  placed  or  devoted  at  home, 
and  then  carried  to  the  church,  and  there  deposited  in  the  gen- 
eral collection. 


214  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

money  and  look  at  it,  and  then  put  it  back  and 
go  to  the  church  for  the  purpose  of  donating  it. 

But  agjain ;  as  we  have  seen,  that  unless  the 
work  of  deciding  how  much  they  ought  to  give, 
and  separating  the  amount  for  that  purpose  while 
at  home  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  was  a  part 
of  the  plan  of  the  apostle,  the  whole  suggestion 
had  in  it  neither  rhyme  nor  reason,  we  now  turn 
to  the  only  alternative  left  our  opponent ;  which 
is  the  conclusion  that  the  work  indicated  by  the 
term,  "  place  or  devote  at  home,"  was  that  of  de- 
ciding  upon  and  separating  the  sum  which  they 
could  spare  to  the  weekly  contribution. 

What  are  the  consequences  of  such  a  position  ? 
We  reply.  It  overturns  and  utterly  uproots  the 
whole  theory  of  Sunday  sanctity ;  for  the  lesson 
taught  by  1  Cor.  1(3 : 1,  2,  instead  of  being  favor- 
able to  the  conception  that  Paul  held  to  such  a 
theory,  shows  that  he  regarded  the  first  day  of 
the  week  as  secular  time.  Do  you  ask,  How  do 
you  reacli  such  a  conclusion  ?  I  answer,  It  is  in- 
evitable, since  the  men  who  were  acting  under 
the  instruction  of  Paul  could  not  carry  out  the 
work  prescribed  by  him  without  devoting  at 
least  the  morning  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  to 
worldly  business,  such  as  that  of  figuring  up  and 
deciding  upon  the  losses  and  profits  of  the  pre- 
ceding week,  and,  perhaps,  collecting  from  out- 
standing matters  the  pro-rata  amount  necessary 
for  the  stated  collection  at  the  church. 

Should  it  be  objected  that  our  suggestion  is 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  215 

open  to  the  criticism  that  the  ^vell-to-do  class  of 
Christians  could  have  furnished  their  means  at 
any  time,  we  answer,  Very  true  ;  but  that,  should 
week  after  week  elapse  without  the  separation, 
on  the  part  of  the  wealthy,  of  the  stipulated 
sum,  it  might,  before  the  arrival  of  the  a,postle, 
reach  figures  which  it  would  be  difficult  even  for 
them  to  meet  without  perplexity.  And  besides, 
the  better,  easier,  more  natural,  and  we  think, 
spiritually,  the  more  profitable  method,  even  for 
them,  would  be  found  in  doing  it  weekly.  We 
might  offer  many  reasons  for  this  conviction,  had 
we  space.  Paul  was  giving  a  general  rule  to 
meet  the  condition  of  all  classes.  The  poor  com- 
prised the  larger  portion  of  these  classes,  and  a 
principle  was  laid  down,  therefore,  which,  while 
it  was  better  for  the  rich  than  any  other,  was  in- 
dispensable, for  the  purposes  in  cjuestion,  to  the 
men  of  moderate  circumstances. 

Our  interpretation,  stated  in  brief,  is  simply 
this  :  The  apostle  instructed  them  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week  to  lay  by  in  store,  at  home, 
what  they  proposed  to  give  to  the  saints  at  Je- 
rusalem, hoarding  it  up  until  he  should  visit 
them,  so  that  at  his  arrival  they  might  put  it  into 
the  common  treasury ;  thus  avoiding  the  possi- 
bility of  being  unable,  on  the  one  hand,  to  meet 
their  pledges,  and  on  the  other,  of  being  neces- 
sitated to  have  their  minds  occupied  with  tem- 
poral aflairs,  during  his  stay.  This  conception  is 
free  from  embarrassments.     Even  were  the  gen- 


210  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT, 

tleman's  translation  of  the  passage  correct,  it 
cannot  be  shown  to  be  unsound.  He  would  read 
the  scripture  substantially  as  follows :  "  Let 
every  one  of  you  devote  at  home,  treasuring  up 
that  there  be  no  gatherings  when  I  corne."  To 
our  mind,  there  is  no  tautology,  even  in  the  dec- 
laration of  the  apostle  thus  expressed,  which  is 
worthy  of  mention  ;  for  should  the  term,  "  treas- 
uring up,"  be  interpreted  to  mean  the  same  as 
placing  or  devoting  at  home,  it  is  explanatory, 
not  of  tlie  command,  but  of  the  purpose  of  the 
command.  A  paraphrase,  which  is  often  employ- 
ed with  profit  in  the  writings  of  Paul,  will 
make  it  all  clear :  "  Upon  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  let  every  one  of  you  lay  aside,  or  devote  to 
the  Lord,  an  amount  commensurate  with  the 
prosperity  which  he  has  bestowed  upon  you, 
treasuring  it  up,  so  that  there  need  be  no  gather- 
ings when  I  come." 

The  only  difference  between  the  gentleman 
and  myself,  therefore,  would  be  as  to  the  'place 
ivheve  it  was  to  be  treasured  up  ;  he  insisting  that 
it  w^as  at  the  church,  and  we,  at  the  house  of  the 
individual  Christian.  We  have  shown  that  his 
opinion  is  not  only  unnecessary,  but  that  it  is 
also  absurd,  since  it  divides  a  transaction  which 
Paul  does  not  divide ;  and,  after  admitting  that 
a  part  of  it  transpired  at  the  home  of  the  indi- 
vidual, it  represents  the  other  part  as  having 
taken  place  at  the  church  ;  whereas,  neither  the 
church,  the  contvihidion  box,  nor  the  assembly, 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SAliBATlI.  217 

are  so  much  as  mentioned.  And  besides,  it  pre- 
sents Paul  in  an  attitude  which  certainly  does 
not  compliment  his  sagacit}'.  Mark  you,  it  is 
"  every  one  of  you  "  that  he  instructs  to  "  lay  by 
at  home."  It  must  therefore  be,  not  the  church 
collectively,  but  its  individual  members  who  are 
called  upon  to  treasure  up,  or  lay  by  in  store. 
Just  here  we  submit  that  the  language  employed 
is  literal,  and  not  fio-urative,  and  that,  this  beino^ 
true,  the  moment  that  the  saints  at  Corinth 
placed  their  funds  in  the  common  treasury,  they 
violated  the  injunction  of  the  apostle,  which  was 
that  they  should  treasure  it  up,  or  lay  it  by  in 
store,  individually.  By  way  of  enforcing  our 
logic,  we  inquire  of  the  reader,  who  has  doubtless 
contributed  many  times  to  church  collections, 
Can  you  look  upon  money  thus  bestowed  as  in 
any  proper  sense  of  the  term  belonging  to  you 
individually  ?  or  as  still  treasured  up  or  laid  by 
in  store  ?  Vv^e  think  that  your  answer  will  not 
be  equivocal.  To  lay  by  in  store,  as  before  stat- 
ed, is  to  put  in  some  safe  and  accessible  place ; 
but  money  once  donated  is  not  accessible  to  the 
individual  contributor,  since  he  has  no  longer 
any  individual  property  in  it. 

Here  we  must  terminate  our  remarks  on  1  Cor. 
IG  :  1,  2.  As  we  do  so,  we  have  disposed  of  the 
last  Bible  text  which  will  be  cited  in  the  support 
of  a  supposed  practice  of  Sunday-keeping  on  the 
part  of  the  eaily  church.  Error  begets  error. 
Having  rejected  the  obvious  teaching  of  Acts  20  : 


218  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

7,  that  Paul,  after  holding  a  meeting  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  traveled  nineteen  and  a  half 
miles  on  foot,  and  having  endeavored  to  explain 
away  this  journey  by  inferring  that  it  took  place 
on  the  second  day  of  the  week,  which  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  connection,  our  opponent  comes 
to  the  consideration  of  1  Cor.  16:1,  2,  lugging 
along  in  his  arms  a  precedent  which  God  had 
clearly  taught  him  was  not  designed  to  teach 
the  lesson  which  he  sought  to  extract  from  it. 
With  this  precedent,  thus  illegitimately  obtained, 
he  seeks  to  explain  the  language  of  Paul  which 
we  have  been  considering.  By  this  means,  he 
has  been  led  to  indorse  error.  But  we  need  not 
recapitulate. 

In  conclusion  on  this  point,  we  remark :  How 
admirable  is  the  providence  of  God  !  He  has  in- 
structed us  in  his  word,  in  regard  to  duty,  by 
clear  precepts,  and  has  never  told  us  to  study 
its  requirements  simply  in  the  light  of  human 
example.  How  remarkable,  therefore,  that  he 
should  have  condescended  to  so  order,  by  his 
Spirit,  the  record  which  has  been  made  in  the 
case  of  every  precedent  brought  forward,  that 
the  text  and  context  would  utterly  overthrow 
every  effort  of  him  who  should  attempt  to  em- 
ploy them  in  the  interest  of  a  false  doctrine. 
On  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  as  if  to  show 
that  it  was  not  holy  time,  two  disciples  are 
brought  to  view  as  traveling  fifteen  miles ;  a 
portion  of  the  distance  in  comxpany  with  their 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SABBATH.  219 

approving  Lord,  and  the  remainder  of  it  after  he 
had  appeared  to,  walked  and  conversed  with, 
them.  In  Acts  20  :  7,  apparently  perceiving  the 
use  which  might  be  made  of  it,  he  places,  in  the 
foreground  of  the  sacred  record,  the  apostle, 
threading  a  weary  journey  on  foot  from  Troas  to 
Assos;  and  lastly,  in  1  Cor.  16:1,  2,  he  framed 
the  lano^uao'e  so  that  it  should  inculcate,  not  the 
idea  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  was  holy 
time,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  it  might  be  de- 
voted to  the  secular  work  of  casting  up  accounts 
and  collecting  funds. 

With  the  exposition  offered  of  the  words,  "  I 
was  in  the  Spirit  on  the  Lord's  day,"  Rev.  1  :  10, 
we  shall  make  short  work.  What  w^e  have 
previously  said  on  that  passage  is  not  sufficiently 
disturbed  to  warrant  extended  remark.  Be  it 
remembered,  then,  that,  as  said  above,  the  pas- 
sage proves  that  God  has  a  day  in  this  dispensa- 
tion. At  this  point  commences  our  divergence. 
W^e  say  that  the  term,  "  Lord's  day,"  refers  to  the 
seventh-day  Sabbath.  The  writer  says  that  it 
refers  to  the  first  day  of  the  w^eek.  The  decla- 
ration that  Christ  paid  no  attention  to  the  sev- 
enth-day Sabbath  after  his  resurrection,  needs 
no  reply  here,  except  that  he  was  under  no  obli- 
gation to  do  so,  and  there  was  no  good  reason 
why  he  should,  since  he  regarded  it  strictly  in 
his  lifetime,  and  enjoined  it  upon  his  followers. 
Perhaps,  however,  it  would  be  well  to  add  that 
he  at  least  never  did  anj^thing  after  his  resurrec- 


220  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

tion  \vhicli  might  be  construed  into  a  desecration 
of  it ;  whereas,  in  the  case  of  the  only  first-day 
on  which  it  can  be  j)TOved  that  lie  ever  met 
with  his  disciples,  after  his  death,  he  devoted  a 
portion  of  its  hours  to  travel  on  the  highway. 

To  the  objection  of  the  writer  that,  if  the  term, 
"  Lord's  day,"  in  the  case  before  us,  does  apply  to 
the  seventh-day  Sabbath,  it  is  strange  that  it 
should  have  been  called  in  every  case  but  this 
"  the  Sabbath,"  we  reply  that,  were  this  true,  this 
v/ould  simply  prove  a  choice  in  titles,  and  implies 
no  disrespect  to  the  day  itself,  since  the  term 
"Sabbath,"  equally  with  that  of  "Lord's  day,"  v/as 
a  sacred  denomination.  Not  so,  however,  if  he 
be  right  in  the  supposition  that  the  term,  "  Lord's 
day,"  applies  to  the  Sunday ;  for,  if  he  be  correct 
in  this,  then  indeed  we  have  something  which  is 
^passing  strcmge.  For,  in  all  the  New  Testament, 
that  which  he  is  pleased  to  style  the  "  Christian 
Sabbath,"  and  to  which,  according  to  his  theory, 
belonged  the  honorable  name  of  "  Lord's  day,"  is 
not  only  so  called  but  once ;  but,  being  spoken  of 
nine  times  by  inspired  men,  it  is  mentioned  eight 
times  out  of  the  nine  by  them  in  an  utter  disre- 
gard of  its  hallowed  nature,  in  the  terms  em- 
ployed, since  it  is  referred  to  by  its  secular  name, 
lirst  day  of  the  week,  in  all  these  instances.  The 
reader  will  recollect  that,  in  our  positive  argu- 
ment, we  showed  that  the  terar,  "Lord's  day," 
was  a  fitting  one  for  the  last  day  of  the  week, 
provided  the  term  translated  "Lord"  was  appli- 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SA1315AT1I.  221 

cable  to  God,  the  Father,  as  well  as  to  Christ,  the 
Son.  1.  Because  it  was  the  clay  which  he  blessed 
and  sanctified  in  Eden,  thus  claiming  it  as  his 
own  (Gen.  2  :  3).  2.  Because,  in  the  command- 
ment, he  calls  it  "  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord."  3. 
Because,  in  Isa.  58  :  13,  14,  he  makes  mention  of 
it  in  the  use  of  the  terms,  ''  Sabbath,"  "  my  holy 
day,"  "the  holy  of  the  Lord,"  &c. 

In  addition,  we  miodit  cite  other  honorable  and 
distinguishing  terms  by  which  it  is  pointed  out 
in  the  Bible  as  a  day  which  belongs  peculiarly 
to  the  Lord  our  God,  but  these  are  sufficient. 

If  it  be  replied  that  the  word  translated 
"Lord  "in  Rev.  1  :  10,  is  necessarily  limited  to 
Christ,  we  ansv/er :  1.  As  we  have  argued  for- 
merly, that  he  said  he  was  Lord  of  the  Sabbath. 
Mark  2  :  27,  28.  2.  That  the  following  texts 
show  conclusively  that  the  divine  Son  of  God 
was  engaged,  equally  with  the  Father,  in  the 
creation  of  this  world ;  and,  therefore,  that  he 
undoubtedly  shared  in  the  rest  which  furnished 
the  foundation  for  the  Edenic  Sabbath,  as  well  as 
in  the  act  of  blessing  and  sanctifying  it,  or  setting- 
it  apart  for  religious  purposes.  "  All  things  were 
made  by  him  [Christ]  :  and  without  him  was  not 
anything  made  that  vras  made."  John  1  :  3.  "He 
"was  in  the  world,  and  the  world  was  made  by 
liim,  and  the  world  knew  him  not."  John  1 :  10. 
" .  .  .  Who  [God]  created  all  things  by  Jesus 
Christ."  Eph.  3:9.  "For  by  him  were  all 
things  created,  that  arc  in  heaven,  and  that  arc 


90  0 


CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT, 


in  earth ;  ...  all  things  were  created  by  him, 
and  for  him."  Col.  1  :  16.  "God  .  .  .  hath  in 
these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by  his  Son,  whom 
he  hath  appointed  heir  of  all  things,  by  whom 
also  he  made  the  worlds."  Heb.  1:1,  2.  Even 
though  w^e  should  grant,  therefore,  which  w^e  do 
not,  that  the  term  translated  "  Lord,"  as  above, 
applies  exclusively  to  the  Son  of  God,  we  cannot 
see  why  the  seventh  day  might  not,  with  all 
propriety,  be  called  after  him,  the  Lord's  day. 

In  the  concludino:  remarks  on  this  branch  of 
the  subject,  it  will  not  be  considered  out  of  place 
for  us  to  remind  the  reader  of  the  protest  which 
we  offered,  in  the  rejoinder  to  the  second  article 
of  the  gentleman  of  the  Statesman,  against  his 
effort  to  obtain  all  the  benefit  which  could  be  de- 
rived from  his  interpretation  of  Rev.  1:10,  before 
he  had  struck  a  single  blow,  either  in  the  direc- 
tion of  overturning  our  construction,  or  estab- 
lishing, by  fair  argument,  his  own.  The  reason 
why  this  protest  was  offered  is  now  apparent. 
The  gentleman  there,  by  anticipation,  assumed 
that  John  meant  by  the  term,  "  Lord's  day,"  the 
first  day  of  the  w^eek.  He  lyromised  that  in  due 
time  he  w^ould  make  good  his  assertion.  But 
how  has  it  proved,  now  that  he  has  reached  the 
very  point  where  he  should  have  fulfilled  this 
engagement  ?  Every  one  must  see  that  he  has 
utterly  failed.  Proof  was  the  very  thing  which 
was  ^promised,  and  which  was  needed,  right  here. 
It  is  the  very  thing,  also,  which  he  has  neglected 


SUNDAY    AXD    THE    SAB15ATH.  223 

to  adduce.  All  that  is  said  in  reference  to  the 
theory  of  Wetstein,  may  have  served  to  give 
respectability^  in  point  of  length,  to  the  treatment 
of  that  which  he  has  regarded  a  most  important 
scripture  in  his  line  of  evidence  ;  but  it  was  ut- 
terly irrelevant  to  anything  which  v,"e  bad  said; 
for  the  reader  will  remember  that  we  emphatic- 
ally planted  ourselves  on  the  position  that  it  was 
the  weekly  Sabbath  to  wdiich  allusion  is  made. 

To  the  restatement  of  the  scriptures  employed 
in  vindication  of  this  last  opinion,  there  can  be' 
no  objection,  but  we  inr|uire  again,  Where  are  the 
passages,  where  the  deductions  from  Scripture 
teachings,  by  which  the  gentleman  has  proved 
that  the  Lord's  day  is  the  first  day  of  the  week  ? 
He  has  not  so  much  as  cited  one.  He  has  not 
made  even  a  respectable  effort  at  argument ;  but, 
with  a  haste  which  is  irreverent,  if  not  indecent, 
he  rushes  away  from  the  book  of  God,  as  if  im- 
pelled by  the  conviction  that  his  view  will  find 
no  support  there,  and  plunges  headlong  into  the 
regions  of  patristic  myth  and  moonshine.  At 
this  we  are  not  surprised.  It  is  just  what  we 
expected.  Sabbatarians  are  as  well  acquainted 
with  this  device  as  they  are  w4th  the  emptiness 
of  the  so-called  Bible  argument  for  the  Sunda}^. 
It  simply  serves  to  strengthen  their  conviction, 
so  often  expressed  in  these  articles,  that  the 
stronghold  of  first-day  observance  will  ever  be 
found  in  writings  which  have  been  manipulated, 
retrenched,  and  interpolatecl,  by  the   church    of 


221  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

Rome.  For,  be  it  remembered,  it  is  from  the 
authorities  to  which  the  gentleman  now  appeals, 
that  the  papacy  brings  its  stoutest  testimonials 
for  apostolic  succession,  papistic  supremacy,  and 
the  other  heresies  wliich  blacken  the  record  of 
its  apostasy. 

All  it  is  necessary  to  say  to  the  reader  here  is, 
therefore,  that  he  should  bear  in  mind  that  Sab- 
batarians are  willing  to  leave  the  arbitrament  of 
this  whole  question  where  it  can  be  determined 
from  the  stand-point  of  Bible  evidence.  It  is  the 
opposition,  and  not  we,  v/ho  make  it  necessary, 
in  the  investigation  of  this  subject,  to  go  upon 
forbidden  ground.  "All  Scripture  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine, 
for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  right- 
eousness ;  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect, 
thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works."  2 
Tim.  3:16,  17.  If,  therefore,  first-day  sanctity 
has  no  warrant  in  the  Bible,  which  we  have  seen 
to  be  the  case,  then  it  is  not  among  those  things 
which  are  profitable,  or  which,  as  Christian  doc- 
trines, are  necessary  to  furnish  the  vutn  of  God 
unto  all  good  luorks. 


SUNDAY    AM)    THE    yAGJJATH.  225 


STATESMAN'S   KEPLY. 


^a.E,TICXjE!      SEA7EZT 


TESTIMONY   OF   THE    EARLY   FATHERS   TO   THE 
FIRST-DAY    SABBATH. 

Besides  the  inspired  records  of  the  Scriptures, 
there  have  come  down  to  us  the  writings  of  men 
who  were  contemporaneous  with  some  of  the 
apostles,  and  the  w^ritings  of  others  who  lived  in 
the  immediately  succeeding  generations.  We 
shall  quote  from  the  writings  of  those  who  lived 
during  the  two  centuries  following  the  close  of 
the  canon  of  inspiration.  These  writers  give 
evidence  enough  that  they  were  not  inspired,  as 
wxre  the  penmen  of  the  Divine  Word.  But  it 
will  be  borne  in  mind  that  we  appeal  to  them 
here  simply  as  witnesses  to  a  matter  of  fact. 
Many  of  their  opinions  and  interpretations  of 
Scripture  may  not  be  worthy  of  acceptance  ;  but 
their  testimony  to  the  existence  of  the  Lord's 
day,  as  an  admitted  fact,  cannot  be  disputed.  As 
there  has  been  a  great  deal  of  loose  citation  from 
the  early  fathers  on  this  question,  we  have  been 
at  considerable  pains  to  translate  carefully  from 
the  original  in  every  case,  and  accompany  each 
quotation  with  minute  and  accurate  reference. 

The  first  waiter  from  whom  we  shall  quote  is 
Ignatius.  This  father  stood  at  the  head  of  the 
church  at  Antioch  at  the  close  of  the  first  century 
and  the  beginning  of  the  second.  After  occupy- 
ing that  position  for  many  years,  he  was  con- 

C'li.  An>.  1  0  B 


22(1  CONSTiTUTlOXAL    AMENDMENT. 

demnecl  to  death,  as  a  Christian,  by  Trajan, 
transported  in  chains  to  Rome,  and  there  thrown 
to  lions  in  the  Coliseum  for  the  amusement  of  the 
populace,  probably  in  the  year  107.  On  his 
way  to  Rome,  he  wrote  seven  epistles  to  various 
churches.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  arrange  these 
writings  as  follows :  (1)  To  the  Ephesians ;  (2) 
to  the  Magnesians  ;  (3)  to  the  Trallians ;  (4)  to 
the  Romans ;  (5)  to  the  Philadelphians ;  (G)  to 
the  Smyrneans ;  (7)  to  Polycarp,  bishop,  or  pres- 
byter, of  Smyrna.  These  seven  epistles,  in  con- 
nection with  a  number  of  others  confessedly 
spurious,  have  come  down  to  us  in  two  Greek 
copies,  a  longer  and  a  shorter.  A  Syriac  version 
of  three  epistles  has  recently  been  found.  With- 
out entering  into  the  controversy  concerning 
these  Ignatian  Epistles,  we  give  the  conclusion 
reached  by  Dr.  Schaff,  which  is  very  generally 
accepted  :  "  The  question  lies  between  the  shorter 
Greek  copy  and  the  Syriac  version.  The  pre- 
ponderance of  testimony  is  for  the  former,  in 
which  the  letters  are  no  loose  patch- work,  but 
were  produced,  each  under  its  one  impulse,  were 
well  known  to  Eusebius,  probably  even  to  Poly- 
carp, and  agree  also  with  the  Armenian  version 
of  the  fifth  century."  (History  of  the  Christian 
Church,  vol.  i.  p.  4<QQ.)  It  is  admitted,  even  by 
those  who  do  not  accept  the  Greek  copy  as  gen- 
uine, that  it  is  the  v^ork  of  the  close  of  the  sec- 
ond century,  or  a  little  later.  In  any  event,  then, 
it  is  important  testimon}^  In  the  epistles  to  the 
Magnesians  occurs  the  following  language  :  "  Be 
not  deceived  with  false  doctrines,  nor  old,  unprof- 
itable fables.  For,  if  we  still  live  in  accordance 
with  Judaism,  we  confess  that  we  have  not  re- 


SUNDAY   ANT)    THE    sABlJATII.  '22  ^ 

ceived  grace.  For  even  the  most  liol}-  prophets 
lived  according  to  Jesus  Christ.  .  .  .  If,  then, 
they  who  -vrere  brought  up  in  ancient  things  ar- 
rived at  a  ne^vness  of  hope,  no  longer  keeping 
the  Sabbath,  but  living  according  to  the  Lord's 
life,  .  .  .  how  can  we  live  without  him? 
.  .  .  Since  we  have  been  made  his  disciples, 
let  us  learn  to  live  according  to  Christianity."* 
— Ad  Magnes.  capp.  8,  9;  Coteler's  Edition,  vol. 
ii.  pp.  19,  20.     Amsterdam,  1724. 

In  this  passage,  it  will  be  observed,  the  writer 
draws  a  contrast  between  Juda^ism  and  Christian- 
ity. To  keep  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  was  to 
live  a-ccordino:  to  Judaism.  To  live  according^  to 
the  dominical  life,  or,  as  the  thought  is  otherwise 

*Not  a  few  eminent  writers,  such  as  Dwight,  and  Wilson,  of 
Calcutta,  who  are  followed  bj  many  lesser  authors,  quote  Igna- 
tius as  saying:  "Let  us  no  more  Sabbatize,  but  keep  the  Lord's 
day."  From  the  literal  rendering  of  the  original  above  given,  it 
will  be  seen  that  these  writers  take  an  unwarrantable  liberty  with 
Iheir  author.  The  words  of  Ignatius  are,  aX/A  Kara  r/)y  KVQiaKrjv 
^oj>)i^  i^uvTfg.  To  separate  the  noun  C^^JjV  from  the  preceding  ad- 
jective, and  connect  it  with  the  following  participle,  so  as  to  read, 
"  Living  a  life  according  to  the  Lord's  day,"  is  an  unnatural  sep 
aratiou  of  the  words  of  the  original.  To  drop  out  the  word 
^(OT/v  is  unwarranted.  If  this  word  were  spurious,  then  the  ren- 
dering would  be,  "Living  according  to  the  Lord's  day,"  the 
adjective  KVQiam],  without  the  noun  for  "  day  "  being  expressed, 
occurring  frequently  for  "the  Lord's  day."  But  there  is  no 
ground  for  rejecting  the  word  "life."  To  color  the  language  of 
an  author  for  the  sake  of  giving  it  point  in  favor  of  one  side  of  a 
question  is  unworthy  of  a  seeker  after  truth.  In  the  present  case, 
there  is  really  nothing  gained  by  departing  from  the  precise  lan- 
guage of  the  writer.  Another  passage,  often  quoted  as  from 
Ignatius,  is  part  of  the  spurious  epistle  to  the  Galatians.  It  is  as 
follows  :  "  During  the  Sabbath,  Christ  continued  under  the  earth, 
in  the  tomb  in  which  Joseph  of  Arimathea  had  laid  him.  At  the 
dawning  of  t  e  Lord's  day,  he  arose  from  the  dead.  The  day  pf 
the  preparation,  then,  comprises  the  passion  ;  the  Lord's  day 
contains  the  resurrection."  This  certainly  has  some  weight  as 
the  testimony  of  a  comparatively  early  writer,  bat  it  must  not  be 
ascribed  to  Ignatius. 


228  CONSTITUTIO^^AL    AMENDMENT. 

expressed,  to  live  according  to  Christianity,  was 
opposed  to  the  keeping  of  the  seventh-day  Sab- 
bath. The  argument  of  Ignatius  tells  strongly 
in  favor  of  the  first-day  Sabbath.  If  Jews,  he 
argues,  brought  up  in  the  old  order  of  things,  on 
turning  Christians,  no  longer  keep  the  seventh- 
day  Sabbath,  but  live  according  to  the  dominical 
life,  observing  as  part  of  that  life,  the  dominical 
day,  the  day  on  which  the  Lord  rose  from  the 
dead,  surely  those  who  never  had  been  Jews 
should  live  according  to  Christianity,  and  not 
o'ive  heed  to  Judaizinoj  teachers. 

Passing  on,  we  come  to  a  document  called  ''  The 
Epistle  of  Barnabas."  This  letter,  though  not 
the  composition  of  the  Barns^bas  of  the  New 
Testament,  was  written  in  the  early  part  of  the 
second  century.  It  cannot  be  determined  who 
was  the  author,  but  the  early  date  of  the  letter 
is  fully  established  ;  and  that  is  the  main  point. 
Its  language  is :  "  We  celebrate  the  eighth  day 
with  joy,  on  which  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead." 
— Cotelers  Edition  of  the  Apostolic  Fathers,  vol.  i. 
p.  47. 

The  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr  is  full  and  ex- 
plicit. As  an  itinerant  evangelist  for  many  years 
during  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  just 
after  the  time  of  the  apostle  John,  he  enjoyed  an 
excellent  opportunity  of  becoming  acquainted 
with  the  customs  of  the  whole  church.  Writing- 
in  the  year  139  to  the  Emperor  Antoninus  Pius, 
in  vindication  of  his  Christian  brethren,  he  gives 
the  following  account  of  their  stated  religious 
services :  "  On  the  day  called  the  day  of  the  sun 
is  an  assembly  of  all  who  live  either  in  cities  or 
in  the  rural  districts,  and  the  memoirs  of  the 
apostles  and  the  writings  of  the    pro])hets   are 


SUNDAY  AXP  THE  SABBATH.  220 

read  ;"  i.  c,  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Then 
he  goes  on  to  specify  the  various  parts  of  their 
first-day  services.  Just  as  at  the  present  day,  in 
Christian  congregations,  there  were  preaching, 
prayer,  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper,  and 
the  contribution  of  alms.  As  reasons  v/hy  Chris- 
tians should  observe  the  first  day,  he  assigns  the 
following :  "  Because  it  Avas  the  first  day  on 
Avhich  God  dispelled  the  darkness  and  chaos,  and 
formed  the  world,  and  because  Jesus  Christ,  our 
Saviour,  rose  from  the  dead  on  it." — Robert 
Stephens  edition  of  the  works  of  Justin  Martyr, 
p.  162.     Lutetise,  1551. 

In  another  of  his  works,  the  Dialogue  with 
Trypho  the  Jew,  written  about  the  same  time  as 
the  Apology,  from  which  we  have  quoted,  occurs 
this  passage :  "  The  command  to  circumcise  in- 
fants on  the  eighth  day  was  a  type  of  the  true 
circumcision  by  which  we  were  circumcised  from 
error  and  evil  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
who  rose  from  the  dead  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week ;  for  the  first  day  of  the  week  remains  the 
chief  of  all  the  days."  (Stephens'  Edition,  p.  59. 
See  also  Trollope's  edition  of  the  Dialogue  w^ith 
Trypho,  pp.  85,  86.)  The  careful  reader  of  Jus- 
tin Martyr  ^vill  observe  th?.t,  in  addressing  Try- 
pho the  Jew,  he  uses  different  terms  for  the  days 
of  the  week  from  those  which  he  employs  in 
addressing  the  Emperor  Antoninus.  Addressing 
a  heathen  emperor,  he  employs  the  heathen 
names  for  both  the  seventh  and  the  first  day  of 
the  week. 

Two  important  notices  of  the  Lord's  day,  all 
the  more  important  because  of  their  incidental 
character,  are  founl  in  the  History  of  Eusebius. 
Dionysius,  bishop  or  presbyter  of  Corinth,  A.  D. 


230  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

170,  in  a  letter  to  the  cliurcli  at  Rome,  a  fragment 
of  v/hich  is  preserved  by  Eusebius,  says :  "  To- 
day we  kept  the  Lord's  holy  day,  in  whicli  we 
read  yoiir  letter."  (Hist.  Eccles.  iv.  23,  Paris  Ed. 
1678,  pp.  117,  118.)  The  other  of  these  notices 
is  in  regard  to  a  treatise  on  the  Lord's  day,  by 
Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis,  A.  D.  170.  This  treatise, 
Eusebius  remarks,  along  with  others  by  the  same 
writer,  had  come  to  the  historian's  knowledge. — 
Hist  Eccles.  iv.  26,  Paris  Ed.  1678,  p.  119.    • 

Althougli  the  letter  of  Pliny  to  Trajan  is  so 
v/ell  known  as  hardly  to  need  quotation,  we  shall 
close  this  article  with  its  interesting  testimony 
in  confirmation,  from  a  pagan  quarter,  of  what 
has  already  been  adduced  from  Christian  writers  : 
"  They  [the  Christians]  aflirmed  that  the  sum  of 
their  fault,  or  error,  was  that  they  were  accus- 
tomed to  assemble  on  a  stated  day — Stato  die — 
before  it  was  light,  and  sing  praise  alternately 
among  themselves  to  Christ  as  God — carinenque 
Christo,  quasi  Deo,  dicere  seciivi  invicem!'  (Plin. 
Epist,  X.,  97.)  Here  wq  have  the  fact  that  Chris- 
tians in  the  early  part  of  the  second  century  met 
regularly  on  a  stated  day,  and  this  stated  day,  as 
a-ll  the  Christian  authorities  of  the  same  date 
prove,  was  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  Lord's 
day. 

Additional  patristic  evidence  will  be  given  in 
the  next  article. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  231 


A   RKJOIXDli:!! 


"TESTBIOXY   OF   THE   EARLY   FATHERS   TO    THE 
FIRST-DAY  SABBATH." 

There  is  one  feature  which  has  characterized 
this  debate,  hitherto,  vfhich  has  been  a  source  of 
considerable  satisfaction.  The  controversy,  np  to 
this  point,  has  been  urged  purely  with  reference 
to  the  teachincf  of  the  Bible,  as  drawn  from  its 
sacred  pages.  Henceforth,  however,  this  is  not 
to  be  the  case.  AVe  are  now  to  have,  not  the 
"sure  word  of  prophecy,"  with  the  clear  and 
forcible  lines  of  textual  evidence,  drawn  from 
its  inspired  utterances,  but  that  "  word  of  proph- 
ecy," supplemented  and  explained  by  the  apos- 
tolic fathers. 

It  has  been  said,  and  well  said,  that  history  re- 
peats itself  If  there  was  one  thing  which 
marked  the  religious  impulse  that  Protestantism 
gave  to  the  world,  it  was  an  utter  rejection,  in 
the  decision  of  religious  opinions,  of  everything 
but  Bible  a,uthority.  The  voice  of  Martin  Lu- 
ther even  now  seems  to  reverbera^te  in  our  ears,  as 
— when  fighting  the  very  battles  which  Sabba- 
tarians are  being  called  upon  to  fight  over  agam 
— he  retorted  in  sharp  and  stinging  words  upon 
his  cowled  and  priestly  opponents,  who  were 
ever  citing  patristic  evidence.  The  Bible,  and  the 
Bible  alone,  is  our  rule  of  fjiith.     Again,  as  we 


2.)2  CONSTITUTIONAL    vKMENDMENT. 

read  the  words  addressed  by  him  to  those  friends 
who  were  hopefully  waiting  the  expected  reply 
from  the  Romanists  of  his  time,  to  a  courageous 
assault  which  he  had  made  upon  them  from  the 
stand-point  of  the  Bible,  it  seems  as  if  they  were 
designed  to  be  prophetic  of  our  time,  rather 
than  descriptive  of  his  own.  He  said :  "  You  are 
waiting  for  your  adversaries'  answer;  it  is  al- 
ready written,  and  here  it  is :  '  The  fathers,  the 
fathers,  the  fathers  ;  the  church,  the  church,  the 
church ;  usage,  custom  ;  but  of  the  Scriptures — • 
nothing  !' " — UAuhignes  Hist.  Ref.,  vol.  viii.,  p. 

717. 

Weaiisome  as  these  repeated  conflicts  may  be 
to  the  child  of  God,  there  is  a  satisfaction  in  the 
thought  that  we  hold  in  our  hands  the  same 
weapons,  and  bear  aloft  the  same  banners  by 
which,  under  the  blessing  of  God,  victory,  com- 
plete and  universal,  has  been  attained  in  the 
past.  The  opponents  of  Bible  truth  have  never 
yet  been  able  to  stand  before  the  thunder  of  its 
power,  or  to  balance  the  ponderous  weight  of  its 
influence,  in  the  decision  of  religious  questions. 
The  homely  phrase  of  the  great  reformer  is  just 
as  potent  and  irresistible  in  the  present  contest  as 
it  was  in  that  for  which  it  v/as  framed  :  "  When 
God's  word  is  by  the  fathers  expounded,  con- 
strued, and  glossed,  then,  in  my  judgment,  it  is 
even  like  unto  one  that  straineth  milk  through  a 
coal-sack,  which  must  needs  spoil  the  milk,  and 
make  it  black ;  even  so,  likewise,  God's  word  of 


ST'NDAY    AND    THE    SAI'.CATII.  233 

itself  is  sufficiently  pure,  clean,  bright,  and  clear; 
but  tlirougb  the  doctrines,  books,  and  writings,  of 
the  fathers,  it  is  very  surely  darkened,  falsified, 
and  spoiled." 

The  elegant  and  convincing  logic  of  Philip 
Melancthon,  the  greatest  theologian  of  the  six- 
teenth century — who,  in  tlie  following  brief  lines, 
discussed  and  summed  up  the  whole  question — is 
just  as  sound  and  unansv^erable  now  as  it  was 
when,  under  the  blessing  of  God,  it  carried  con- 
fusion and  defeat  into  the  ranks  of  the  papacy, 
three  hundred  years  ago.  He  says  :  "  How  often 
has  not  Jerome  been  mistaken !  how  often  Au- 
c^ustine  !  how  often  Ambrose  !  How  often  do  we 
not  find  them  differing  in  judgment — how  often 
do  we  not  hear  them  retracting  their  errors ! 
There  is  but  one  Scripture  divinely  inspired,  and 
without  mixture  of  error."  {Idem.,  p.  219.)  In 
fine,  we  might  prove  from  history  that  nearly 
every  Protestant  writer,  for  the  last  three  centu- 
ries, has  forged  for  us  weapons  which  could  be 
employed  with  the  most  telling  effect  in  the  con- 
troversy in  which  we  are  now  engaged. 

This,  however,  we  have  not  space  to  do,  but 
must  content  ourselves  with  several  brief  cita- 
tions, by  which  we  will  show  that  the  authorities 
of  our  own  times — equally  with  those  of  the 
past — are  uniform  in  their  expressions  of  con- 
tempt for  testimony  which  is  so  largely  relied 
upon  by  our  reviewer  in  the  p^resent  discussion. 
"  To  avoid  being  imposed  upon,  v/e  ought  to  treat 


234  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

tradition  as  we  do  a  notorious  and  known  liar,  to 
whom  we  give  no  credit,  unless  what  he  says  is 
confirmed  to  us  hy  some  person  of  undoubted 
vera,city.  .  .  .  False  a.nd  lying  traditions  are 
of  an  early  date,  and  the  greatest  men  have,  out 
of  a  pious  credulity,  sufiered  themselves  to  be 
imposed  upon  by  them." — Archibald  Boiver. 

"  But  of  these,  wo  ma^y  safely  state  that  there 
is  not  a  trwlh  of  the  most  ortliodox  creed  that 
cannot  be  proved  by  their  authority;  nor  a  her- 
esy  that  has  disgraced  the  Romish  church,  that 
may  not  challenge  them  as  it  abettors.  In  point 
of  doctrine,  their  authority  is,  wWi  me,  nothing. 
The  WORD  of  God  alone  contains  my  creed.  On 
a  number  of  points,  I  can  go  to  the  Greek  and 
Latin  fathers  of  the  church,  to  know  what  they 
believed,  and  what  the  people  of  their  respective 
communions  believed ;  but  after  all  this,  I  must 
return  to  God's  word  to  know  what  he  would 
have  me  to  believe."  (A.  Clark,  Com,  on  Prov. 
8.)  "  We  should  take  heed  how  we  quote  the  fa- 
thers in  proof  of  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel ;  be- 
cause he  who  knov/s  them  best,  knows  that  on 
many  of  those  subjects  they  blow  hot  and  cold." 
(Quoted  in  Hist,  of  Sab.  from  Autobiography  of 
Adam  Clarke.) 

"  Most  of  the  writings,  bearing  the  name  of 
the  apostolic  fathers,  are  regarded  as  spurious  by 
various  modern  critics.  The  genuineness  of  all 
has  been  disputed  ;  but  the  fragments  that  re- 
main are  curious  as  relics  of  an  early  age,  and 


SUXDAY  AND  THE  SABBATH.  235 

valuable  as  indicating  the  character  of  prim- 
itive Christianity."  (Am.  Cyc,  Art.  Apostolic 
Fathers.)  Thus  much  for  the  estimate  whicli 
Protestants  place  upon  the  authorities  vv'hich  are 
brought  forward  by  the  gentleman  in  the  States- 
man, xissuredly,  he  would  never  have  appealed 
to  them,  had  he  not  felt  that  his  cause  Avas  a 
hopeless  one,  Vv-hen  left  to  the  arbitrament  of 
Scripture. 

Should  it  be  pleaded  in  extenuation  of  his 
cause  that  they  have  not  been  advanced  v/ith  a 
view  to  influencing  the  judgment  of  the  reader 
in  reference  to  the  continuity  of  the  old  Sabbath, 
but  were  introduced  simply  to  furnish,  as  sug- 
gested in  the  outset,  a  criticism  showing  the  use 
of  the  term,  "  Lord's  day,"  in  the  fii'st  three  cent- 
uries, then,  we  inquire,  why  cite  Ignatius  at  all  ? 
It  will  be  perceived  at  a  glance  that,  according 
to  the  rendering  which  he  has  given  us — a,nd  for 
which,  and  his  note  thereon,  he  will  receive  our 
thanks,  since  it  will  save  us  much  labor — there  is 
not  in  it  a  single  mention  of  the  term,  ''  Lord's 
day."  If  the  passage  conveys  any  meaning  at 
all,  it  is  either  that  the  Sabbath  should  be  ob- 
served in  a  manner  diiferinof  from  that  in  which 
it  was  kept  by  the  Jews,  or  else  tha.t  it  should 
not  be  observed  at  all. 

But  the  last  of  these  propositions,  the  writer 
vv^ill  not  admit  to  be  sound,  since  he  has  fairl}^ 
repudiated  such  a  conception,  and  has,  in  so  many 
Avords,  stated  that  he  heartily  agrees  with  us  in 


230  CONSTlTrTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

the  perpetuity  of  the  Edenic  Sabbath.  He  has 
also  stated  that  the  fourth  commandment — which 
it  will  be  admitted  commences  with  the  words, 
"  Remember  the  Sahhath  day,  to  keep  it  holy " 
— is  a  Sabbath  law  which  is  still  binding,  and 
which,  the  words  of  Ignatius  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding, forever  settles  the  question  that  this 
is  not  a  Sabbathless  dispensation. 

What  shall  be  done,  then,  with  the  language  of 
the  venerable  father  ?  We  are  well  acquainted 
with  the  office  which  it  has  performed  hitherto, 
and  are  anxious  to  know  where  it  is  to  throw  its 
baleful  shadow  hereafter.  In  the  past,  hun- 
dreds of  individuals  whose  consciences  have  been 
aroused  by  appeals  to  the  Bible  on  the  subject 
of  the  perpetuity  of  God's  holy  day,  have  had 
their  fears  quieted,  and  have  been  lulled  into  se- 
curity by  the  very  extract  with  which  we  are 
here  favored.  Why,  they  have  said,  was  not  Ig- 
natius a  disciple  of  John,  and  did  he  not  there- 
fore know  what  John  believed  ?  Did  he  not  also 
prove  his  integrity  by  becoming  a  martyr  to  the 
faith  ?  Since,  therefore,  he  was  possessed  of 
both  knowledge  and  piety,  and  since  he  has  called 
the  first  day  of  the  week  the  Lord's  day,  are  we 
not  justified  in  keeping  the  day  which  he  kept, 
and  rejecting  the  day  which  he  rejected  ?  Sup- 
ported and  encouraged  in  this  position,  as  they 
have  been  by  the  brethren  of  the  writer  who — 
having  either  less  candor,  or  less  scholarship, 
than  he — have  insisted  again  and  again  that  Ig- 


STNDAV    AND    Til?:    SABBATH.  237 

natiiis  did  call  the  first  day  of  the  week  the 
Lord's  day,  it  has  been  in  many  cases  utterly  im- 
possible for  Sabbatarians  to  disabuse  their  minds 
of  this  impression.  "With  gratitude,  therefore, 
we  shall  add  the  name  of  the  gentleman  to  the 
rapidly  increasing  list  of  scholars  who,  headed  by 
Kitto,  and  others  of  equal  distinction,  frankly 
concede  that  Sabbatarians  have  been  in  the  right, 
and  that  Ignatius  did  not  speak  of  the  Lord's  day 
at  all,  but  simply  alluded  to  the  Lord's  life. 

But  what  shall  we  say  for  those  who  have 
been  deluded  upon  this  point,  and  have  thus 
been  prevented  from  doing  what  they  felt  that 
duty  required  ?  There  is  a  terrible  responsibility 
somewhere.  For  the  scholars  who  have  abetted 
this  deception,  there  can  be  no  defense.  For  the 
unfortunate  victims  of  the  fraud,  it  may  be  said 
that  their  situation  would  be  more  hopeful  had 
the}^  not  brought  themselves  into  the  difficulty 
by  going  upon  forbidden  ground.  Should  one  be 
led  astray  by  an  incorrect  translation  of  the 
Scriptures,  God  would  undoubtedly  pardon  the 
mistake;  for  the  person  had  done  the  best  he 
could  under  the  circumstances,  and  had  sought 
for  light  where  God  had  instructed  him  so  to  do. 
But  to  those  who,  having  left  the  only  true 
source  of  trustworthy  knowledge,  have  allowed 
any  class  of  persons,  ancient  or  modern,  to  shape 
their  belief  differently  from  what  it  would  have 
been  had  they  relied  wholly  upon  the  Bible,  we 
fear  that  Christ  will  sav — as  he  did  to  those  in 


238  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

like  circumstances  in  his  day,  wlio,  having  fol- 
lowed the  traditions  of  their  ancestors,  were 
found  violating  the  law  of  God— "In  vain  do 
ye  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  com- 
mandments of  men." 

Before  closing  on  tliis  point,  and  in  order  that 
the  citation  may  not  be  employed  in  the  interest 
of  no- Sabbath  views,  let  the  reader  consider,  for 
a  moment,  another  feature,  and  a  very  im^portant 
one  in  this  aro-ument.  Havino^  seen  that  Is^natius 
— if  he  wrote  the  above — did  not  mention  the 
Lord's  day,  it  is  proper  now  to  inquire  wdiether 
it  is  certain  that  he  ever  penned  the  language  in 
cjuestion,  at  all  ?  To  this  it  may  be  replied,  that 
it  is  very  far  from  being  so.  Nay,  it  is  in  the  high- 
est degree  probable,  as  the  folio v/ing  extracts 
will  prove,  that  the  venerable  man  either  never 
v^rote  a  word  of  those  which  are  cited,  or,  if  he 
did,  what  he  said  has  been  so  manipulated  that 
it  is  very  far  from  conveying  the  impression 
wdiich  he  intended.  "  From  Smyrna,  he  (Ignatius) 
wrote  to  the  churches  at  Ephesus,  Magnesia, 
Trallia,  Home,  and  Philadelphia,  and  on  his  voy- 
age, to  Polycarp,  and  the  church  at  Smyrna. 
These  letters  are  still  extant,  though  the  genu- 
ineness of  the  first  three  is  doubted  by  some 
learned  men."  {Cyc.  Rel'ig.  Knoui.  Art.  Igna- 
tius) 

The  distinguished  liistorian  and  scholar,  Kitto, 
speaks  on  this  point  in  his  C^^clopedia,  Art. 
Lord's  Day,  as  follows  :     "  We  must  notice  one 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  239 

other  passage  as  bearing  on  the  subject  of  the 
Lord's  day,  though  it  certainly  contains  no  men- 
tion of  it.  It  occurs  in  the  epistle  of  Ignatius  to 
the  Magnesians  (about  A.  D.  100).  The  whole 
passage  is  evidently  obscure,  and  the  text  may 
be  corrupt."  Originally,  there  were  fifteen  let- 
ters attributed  to  lo-natius.  Centuries  ao-o,  how- 
ever,  eight  of  them  were  rejected  as  hopelessly 
spurious.  The  remaining  seven  have  been  also 
denounced  as  forgeries,  by  many  writers,  with 
John  Calvin  at  their  hefid.  Others,  while  hold- 
ing on  to  four  of  the  seven,  have  condemned 
three,  and  anions^  them  the  letter  to  the  Mas^ne- 
sians,  from  which  the  citation  which  we  are  con- 
sidering was  taken.  A  poor  stone,  this,  which 
purports  to  come  from  Antioch,  for  the  hea,d- 
stone  of  the  corner  of  the  temple  of  patristic 
testimonials  to  the  Sunday. 

The  way  is  nov/  prepared  for  the  consideration 
of  the  second  extract,  namely,  that  of  Barnabas. 
Here,  again,  the  confession  of  the  gentleman  is 
of  service  to  us,  by  way  of  saving  labor,  since 
he  unequivocally  admits  that  the  Barnabas  who 
wrote  the  letter  from  v/hich  he  quotes,  was 
not  the  Barnabas  of  New-Testament  fame.  It 
becomes  important,  however,  that  v/e  should 
know  just  who  he  was  who  v/rote  this  epistle, 
before  it  should  be  received  as  authority  in  a 
grave  religious  discussion.  Few  persons  would 
have  the  temerity  to  commit  their  spiritual  in- 
terests to  the  hands  of  nameless  individuals  who 


24U  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

lived  1700  years  ago,  unless  they  could  feel  some 
assurance  that  the  men  in  whom  they  were  thus 
confiding  were  persons  whose  judgment  should 
have  weight  in  the  decision  of  matters  of  faitli. 
It  is  not  enough  that  it  should  be  established, 
even  beyond  doubt,  that  the  writer  in  question 
lived  in  the  second  century.  For  no  one  will  in- 
sist that  all  the  men  who  lived  at  that  time  were 
proper  exponents  of  the  views  held  by  Christians 
in  that  period.  It  is,  therefore,  but  reasonable 
that,  before  any  man  is  brought  forward  to  testi- 
fy in  so  important  a  matter,  he  should  have 
either  a  name  which  will  show  that  he  was 
qualified,  both  morally  and  intellectually,  to  act 
the  part  of  a  public  teacher  of  the  opinions  held 
in  his  time,  or,  at  least,  that  what  he  has  written 
must  be  of  a  nature  to  commend  his  utterances 
to  our  judgments.  Neither  of  these  requisitions, 
however,  is  met  in  the  case  of  the  Barnabas  (if 
his  name  was  really  Barnabas)  quoted  above.* 

That  his  epistle  has  been  employed  in  a 
gigantic  fraud,  no  one  will  dispute.  It  is  headed, 
"The  general  Epistle  of  Barnabas."  At  its 
close,  as  given  in  the  apocryphal  New  Testament, 

*Dicl  it  not  appear  to  be  indispensable  to  the  enlightening  of 
the  reader,  as  to  the  consummate  foUj  of  the  author  of  the  epistle 
of  Barnabas,  we  should  not  append,  as  we  do,  his  language  in 
the  following  note  since  it  is  hardly  worthy  of  a  place  in  a  chaste 
and  dignified  discussion.  For  its  citation,  we  hold  those  respon- 
sible who  have  made  this  action  neeessary,  and  who  value  the 
testimony  of  a  man  so  utterly  devoid  of  common-sense  :  "  Neith- 
er shalt  thou  cat  of  the  hyena ;  that  is,  again,  be  not  an  adulter- 
er ;  nor  a  corrupter  of  others ;  npither  be  like  to  such.  And 
wherefore  so?  Because  that  creature  every  .year  changes  its 
kind,  and  is  sometimes  male  and  sometimes  female."  Chap.  0:8. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  241 

is  the  subscription,  "  Barnabas,  the  apostle,  and 
companion  of  Paul."  Now,  if  he  wrote  these 
words  himself,  the  gentleman  will  admit  that  he 
is  unworthy  of  the  slightest  confidence,  since  he 
lias  told  a  deliberate  falsehood.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  be  insisted  that  this  was  the  w^ork  of 
subsequent  generations,  then  we  must  move  with 
extreme  caution.  In  the  region  where  this 
epistle  lies,  are  the  unmistakable  footprints  of 
men  base  enough  to  pervert  the  facts,  and  to  em- 
ploy its  contents  for  an  unworthy  purpose. 

The  only  alternative  left  us,  therefore,  since 
the  author  of  the  document  is  unknown  to  his- 
tory, is  that  of  examining  what  he  has  said,  with 
reference  to  its  character.  Before  doing  this, 
however,  it  will  be  well  to  state — by  way  of  put- 
ting the  reader  on  his  guard — that  the  history  of 
this  epistle  is  of  a  nature  to  awaken  the  most 
serious  suspicion.  By  consulting  the  Am.  Cyc, 
Art.  E])istle  of  Barnabas,  he  will  find  it  there 
stated  that  this  epistle  was  lost  to  the  world  for 
eight  hundred  years,  namely,  from  the  ninth  to 
the  seventeentli  century,  and  that,  when  it  came 
to  the  surface  after  its  long  disappearance,  it  was 
found  in  the  hands  of  one  Sigismond,  a  Jesuit  of 
that  age.  The  desperate  character  of  the  order 
to  w^hich  this  man  belonged,  and  the  r-ecklessness 
with  which  its  members  treat  documents  of  the 
most  sacred  character,  when  they  can  thereby 
serve  a  favorite  purpose,  need  no  comment  here. 

C'li    Am.  1(3  B 


242  CONSTITUTIONAL    AM  KXD.MEXT. 

Prof.  Stowe,  while  arguing  favorably  to  the 
epistle,  in  some  respects,  employs  the  following 
v/orcis,  Avhich  have  in  them  great  significance,  in 
view  of  v/hat  has  been  said  above  :  "  We  admit 
that  the  epistle  of  Barnabas  is  strongly  interpo- 
lated."—i/is/.  of  Bool-s  of  the  Bible,  p.  423. 

It  is  now  time  to  ponder,  for  a  moment,  the 
words  of  the  nondescript  writer  quoted  above. 
Tliey  are  as  follows  :  "  We  celebrate  the  eighth 
day  with  joy,  on  which  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead." 
In  them  is  found  not  a  single  fact  Avhich,  grant- 
ing their  authenticity,  is  at  all  decisive  in  the 
matter  at  issue.  For,  be  it  remembered,  the  con- 
troversy is  not  as  to  whether  the  ancients  were 
in  the  habit  of  holding  convocations  for  any 
purpose  whatsoever,  on  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
but,  whether  they  called  it  the  Lord's  day.  It 
will,  therefore,  be  admitted  that  the  term,  Lord's 
day,  is  not  so  much  as  mentioned ;  whereas,  the 
day  which  it  is  supposed  Avas  entitled  to  the 
honor  of  beino^  thus  desic^nated,  is  termed  the 
"  eighth  day,  the  one  on  which  Jesus  rose  from 
the  dead."  Nor  is  it  so  much,  as  intimated  that 
the  day  in  question  was  observed  as  a  Sabbath, 
or  esteemed  as  holy.  The  statement  employed 
is  that '•' they  celebrated  itwdthjoy."  But  this 
could  be  said  v/ith  perfect  propriety  of  any  day 
of  the  week  on  which  there  regularly  occurred  a 
relio'ious  festival. 

As  an  illustration  of  this,  it  mio-ht  be  men- 
tioned  here  that  a  historian  of  the  present  time. 


SINDAV    AND    Tl!i:    SAlilJAril.  2-43 

while  mentioning  the  usages  of  this  period,  could 
not  be  charged  with  inaccuracy  should  he  declare 
that  the  25th  of  December,  which  is  supposed  by 
some  to  be  the  day  of  the  Lord's  nativit}^,  is  reg- 
ularly celebrated.  Should  he  do  so,  and  should 
coming  generations  infer  therefrom  that  it  is  now 
regarded  as  holy,  you  will  readily  perceive  the 
mistake  into  Avhich  they  woidd  fall.  What  we 
want,  if  we  must  have  recourse  to  such  Tiiiserahle 
^material  as  that  which  we  are  handling  over,  is 
something  positive  and  definite.  This  the  text 
undeniably  fails  to  give.  We  leave  it,  therefore, 
as  worthless ;  1st.  Because  we  do  not  know  ivho 
wrote  it.  2d.  Because  we  do  not  know  when  it 
was  written.  .3d.  Because  it  is  found  in  an 
epistle  so  corrupted  by  interpolations  that  it  is 
not  at  all  reliable  as  authority.  4th.  Because  it 
has  no  direct  bearing  upon  the  subject.  5th.  Be- 
cause its  author — by  the  absurd  and  ridiculous 
sentiments  to  which  he  gave  expression — mani- 
festly had  a  judgment  too  weak  to  allow  us  to 
suppose  that,  in  the  providence  of  God,  in  which 
nothing  falls  out  by  mistake,  he  should  constitute 
a  pillar  in  any  way  necessary  to  the  establish- 
ment of  sound  religious  doctrine. 

The  third  authority  brought  forward  is  Justin 
Martyr.  From  him  we  learn  that,  on  the  day  of 
the  sun,  the  church  at  Rome  v/ere  in  the  habit  of 
convening,  partaking  of  the  Lord's  supper,  listen- 
ing to  preaching,  engaging  in  prayer,  and  in  the 
contribution  of  alms. 


24-i  CONSTlTUnONAL    AMENDMENT. 

It  will  bo  at  once  perceived  that  here  is  the 
nearest  approach  yet  made  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  task  which  our  reviewer  assigned 
himself,  and  for  which  he  has  led  the  reader 
away  from  the  oracles  of  God  to  the  opinions  and 
j)ractices  of  men  liable  to  error  and  mistake. 
Let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  the  'prominent  ob- 
ject to  be  gained  by  this  departure,  was  the  pro- 
duction of  patristic  authority  for  the  use  of  the 
term,  Lord's  day,  in  the  first  three  centuries. 
That  this  purpose  has  not  been  accomplished, 
hitherto,  all  must  admit.  The  next  inquiry,  there- 
fore, is,  should  al]  points  of  dispute  respecting 
the  reliability  of  what  lias  been  quoted  above, 
be  waived,  and  should  it  be  granted  that  Justin 
Martyr  said  what  is  attributed  to  him,  Has  the 
desired  object  been  reached  ?  The  answer  is 
emphaticaljy  in  the  negative.  Justin  Martyr 
avoids  the  application  of  Lord's  day  to  the  day 
of  the  sun,  as  if  prevented  from  using  it  by  the 
same  fatality  wliich  has  withheld  all  the  others 
from  doing  so,  who  have  thus  far  been  cited. 

Here  we  might  pause,  and  insist  that  the 
gentleman  has  utterly  failed,  in  the  citation  be- 
fore us,  to  prove  anything  which  is  really  rele- 
vant to  the  subject.  It  is  in  vain  that  he  urges, 
in  extenuation  of  the  fact  that  Justin  calls  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  the  "  day  of  the  sun,"  that 
he  is  addressing  a  heathen  emperor.  He  was  not 
afraid  to  speak  to  that  emperor  of  the  Old  and 
Nev/  Testaments,  of  the  preaching  of  the  Vv^ord, 


J 


.SLWDAV    AND    TUK    SAJilJATlI.  '246 

of  the  Lord's  supper,  and  of  the  resurrection  of 
Christ ;  and  why  should  he  thus  carefully  avoid 
mention  of  the  Lord's  day  ?  Surely,  he  did  not 
wish  to  convey  the  impression  that  Christians 
observed  the  day  of  the  sun  because  of  its 
heathen  character,  since  he  gives  the  reasons  for 
their  doinc:  so. 

But,  a.gain,  it  is  claimed  that  at  this  period 
the  chosen  and  peculiar  appellation  which  had 
been  given  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  that  of  Lord's 
day,  and  that  the  Lord's  day,  or  the  Sunday,  had 
become  the  holy  Sabbath  which  God  command- 
ed. This  being  true,  assuredly  we  might  expect 
that,  in  the  work  of  Justin  entitled,  "  A  Dialogue 
with  Trypho,  the  Jew,"  he  would  set  forth,  in  the 
use  of  its  peculiptr  title,  the  claims  of  that  day 
which  had  been  elevated,  by  divine  command,  to 
the  position  of  the  ancient  Sabbath.  But  does 
he  do  this  ?  The  gentleman  does  not  urs^e  it.  He 
does  say  that,  in  writing  to  the  Jew,  he  drops 
the  heathen  titles  of  Sunday  and  Saturday,  and 
speaks  of  the  first,  and  the  seventh,  day  of  the 
week.  But  mark  again  ;  it  is  not  urged  that  he 
anywhere  calls  the  first  day  the  Lord's  day. 
Once  more,  therefore,  he  has  failed  on  this  branch 
of  the  subject. 

Now  it  will  be  well  to  regard  the  matter  from 
the  other  side  of  the  question.  It  must  be  con- 
ceded, as  remarked  above,  that  what  Justin  Mar- 
tyr says  furnishes  stronger  support  for  the  idea 
of  w^orship  on  the  Sunday  than   anything  else 


246  COXSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

wliich  lias  been  adduced.  But  here  again,  we 
protest  that  the  Bible,  alone  and  unexplained,  is 
sufficient  for  the  settlement  of  this  point.  Oth- 
ers, if  they  like,  may  form  their  religious  faith 
upon  the  practice  of  uninspired  men,  handed  down 
to  us  through  the  perilous  transit  of  the  ages, 
protected  and  shielded  from  corruption  and  in- 
novation by  no  denunciation  of  divine  wrath 
against  those  who  change  its  phraseology;  but 
we  much  prefer  to  stand  under  the  covering  aegis 
of  these  words:  "If  any  man  shall  add  unto 
these  things,  God  shall  add  unto  him  the  plagues 
which  are  written  in  this  book."  (Rev.  22  :  18.) 
Nor  do  we  think  that  the  gentleman  himself 
would  seriously  urge  that  this  position  is  un- 
sound. Let  us  test  it.  Justin  Martyr  is  assumed 
to  be  a  fair  exponent  of  the  religious  sentiment 
of  his  time.  Now,  therefore,  what  he  believed 
they  believed;  and  what  they  believed,  we  ought 
to  believe,  if  our  position,  taken  above,  is  not 
correct.  Proceeding  a  step  farther,  we  incjuire, 
what  was  the  faith  of  Justin  Martyr  and  his 
contemporaries,  allowing  his  writings  to  be  the 
criterion  of  judgment  ?  To  this  it  may  replied  : 

1st.  That  they  believed  in  no  Sabbath  in  this 
dispensation.  Proof:  ''For  if  before  Abraham 
there  was  no  need  of  circumcision,  nor  of  Sab- 
baths, nor  of  feasts,  nor  of  offerings  before  Moses ; 
so  now  in  like  manner  there  is  no  need  of  them, 
since  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  was,  by  the 
determinate  counsel  of  God,  boi-n  of  a  virc^in  of 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SABBATH.  247 

the  seed  of  Abrahaii),  \Yithoiit  sin.''  (Dial,  of 
Tryplio.)  Does  the  writer  believe  this  ?  The 
reader  well  knows  that  he  does  not,  for  he  has 
nobly  repudiated  it,  again  and  again. 

2d.  They  believed  that  the  Sabbath  was  im- 
posed upon  tlie  Jews  for  their  sins.  Proof:  "  It 
was  because  of  your  (/.  c,  Jews)  iniquities,  and 
the  iniquities  of  your  fathers,  that  God  appoint- 
ed you  to  observe  the  Sabbath."  {Idem.)  But 
our  reviewer  holds — as  must  all  who  accept  the 
words  of  Christ  (Mark  2 :  27,  28) — that  it  was 
given  to  Adam  in  the  garden  of  Eden,  as  their 
representative  head,  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole 
race,  more  than  two  thousand  years  before  there 
was  a  Jevf  in  the  world. 

od.  They  believed  that,  in  the  administration  of 
the  Lord's  supper,  water  should  be  employed. 
Proof:  ''At  the  conclusion  of  this  discourse,  i.  c, 
that  of  the  Bishop  on  Sunday,  we  all  rise  up  to- 
gether and  pray ;  and  prayers  being  over,  there 
is  bread,  and  wine,  and  v/ater  offered."  (First 
Apol.  Trans,  by  Reeves.)  But  modern  Christen- 
dom look  upon  this  as  an  innovation  of  popery. 

4th.  They  believed  that  the  reasons  why  Chris- 
tians should  observe  the  first  day  of  the  week 
were  found  in  the  facts  that  God  dispelled  the 
darkness  and  chaos  on  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
and  that  on  that  day,  Christ  rose  from  the  dead. 
Proof:  Extract  given  above  by  the  v/riter  in  his 
article.  But  the  first  of  these  opinions,  modern 
Christians  will  not  admit  at  all,  and  the  latter 


2  i S  ( -OXSTl T UT 1  OX AL    AMEN D3IENT. 

farnislies  only  one-half  of  the  obligation,  since 
it  ignores  all  positive  law  upon  the  subject. 

So  we  might  proceed,  but  enough  has  been 
said  to  show  that  Justin  Martyr,  as  quoted  above, 
is  no  criterion  for  the  faith  of  those  who  have 
the  Bible  in  their  hands,  from  which  they  can 
learn,  contrary  to  his  views  :  1st.  That  we  have 
a  Sabbath.  2d.  That  it  was  given  to  all  man- 
kind as  a  blessing,  and  not  to  the  Jews  for  their 
sins.  3d.  That  both  the  bread  and  the  wine  be- 
long to  the  laity,  as  well  as  to  the  priests.  4th. 
That  the  reasons  for  the  observance  of  the  Lord's 
day  do  not  rest  upon  the  circumstance  that  God 
dispelled  the  darkness  on  the  first  day,  but  upon 
an  explicit  command  of  Heaven. 

If  the  reader  would  satisfy  himself  from  other 
sources  that  the  statements  of  Justin  Martyr  are 
to  be  taken  with  extreme  caution,  and  that  his 
judgment  was  so  easily  imposed  upon  as  to  ren- 
der him  an  unsafe  guide  in  the  plainest  matters 
of  fact,  he  will  read  the  following  extract  from  a 
publication  of  the  Am.  Tract  Society :  "  Justin 
Martyr  appears  indeed  peculiarly  unfitted  to  lay 
claim  to  authority.  It  is  notorious  that  he  sup- 
posed a  pillar  erected  on  the  island  of  the  Tiber  to 
Semo  Sanchus,  an  old  Sabine  Deity,  to  be  a  mon- 
ument erected  by  the  Roman  people  in  honor  of 
the  imposter,  Simon  Magus.  Were  so  gross  a 
mistake  to  be  made  by  a  modern  writer,  in  relat- 
ing a  historical  fact,  exposure  would  immediately 
take  place,  and  his  testimony  would  thencefor- 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SAIJIJATII.  24'J 

ward  be  suspected.  And,  assuredly,  the  same 
measure  should  be  meted  to  Justin  Martyr,  who 
so  egregiously  errs  in  reference  to  a  fact  alluded 
to  by  Livy,  the  historia-n." — Spirit  of  Popery, 
pp.  44,  45. 

In  concluding  the  remarks  which  will  be  of- 
fered here — in  reference  to  those  productions 
which  are  attributed  to  Justin  Martyr,  and  which 
have  been  brought  forward  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
fluencing the  mind  of  the  reader  in  favor  of  a 
cause  which  has  found  no  support  in  the  Script- 
ures— it  is  proper  to  state  that  their  authentic- 
ity is  by  no  means  above  suspicion ;  or,  to  speak 
more  accurately,  that  some  of  them  have  been 
tampered  with,  is  a  matter  which  is  settled  be- 
yond dispute.  Already  the  reader  has  seen  that 
by  some  means  they  have  been  made  to  contribute 
to  the  interests  of  the  Romish  doctrine  of  the  use 
of  water  in  the  sacrament,  as  early  as  the  first 
part  of  the  second  century.  If  it  be  granted 
that  the  statement  in  question  is  historically  true, 
then  the  leaven  of  the  papacy  had  begun  to  work 
so  manifestly  in  the  lifetime  of  Justin,  that  the 
opinions  of  his  associates,  as  well  as  of  himself, 
ouMit  to  have  no  weis^ht  with  us  who  have  re- 
pudiated  the  great  apostasy. 

On  the  other  hand,  should  it  be  denied  that 
water  was  then  employed,  as  stated  by  the  vener- 
able father,  there  remain  but  two  conclusions  be- 
tween which  the  reader  can  take  his  choice ; 
either,  1st,  Justin  did  not  correctly  represent  the 


250  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

faith  of  his  time ;  or,  2d.  What  he  did  say  origi- 
nally has  been  molded  and  fashioned  by  the  plas- 
tic hand  of  the  man  of  sin,  until  it  is  made  to 
support  the  heresies  of  the  hierarch}^  To  our 
mind,  the  latter  conclusion  is  undoubtedly  the 
true  one.  Below  will  be  found  an  extract  from 
a  distinguished  historian  of  the  church,  which 
proves  that  what  is  said  above  respecting  the 
treatment  which  the  writings  of  Justin  Martyr 
have  received  is  correct :  "  Like  many  of  the 
ancient  fathers,  he  [Justin]  appears  to  us  under 
the  greatest  disadvantage.  Works  really  his 
have  been  lost,  and  others  have  been  ascribed 
to  him,  part  of  which  are  not  his ;  and  the  rest, 
at  least,  of  ambiguous  authority." — Milners 
History  of  Church,  Book  2,  Chap.  3.* 

The  fourth  historic  mention  of  the  Lord's  day, 
as  brouo^ht  forward,  is  in  the  following  words  of 
Dionysius  :  "  To-day  we  kept  the  Lord's  holy  day, 
in  which  we  read  your  letter."  By  turning  to 
Eusebius,  the  curious  reader  will  discover  that 
the  citation  incidentally  given  occupies  but  little 

*  Since  writing  the  above,  the  following  interesting  item  in  the 
Christian  Union,  for  Feb.  19,  has  been  brought  to  my  notice, 
and  will  serve  to  show  that  continued  investigation  on  the  part  of 
scholars  is  rendering  the  authenticity  of  the  writings  of  Justin 
Martyr  more  and  more  doubtful: — "Dr.  Franz  Overbeck  has 
lately  examined,  with  2rent  care,  the  'epistle  to  Diognetus/ 
which  has  been  regarded  as  one  of  the  most  precious  relics  of 
the  age  succeeding  that  of  the  apostles.  He  urges  several 
reasons  for  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  the  work  was  written 
later  than  the  era  of  Constantine,  and  was  intended  by  its  author 
to  pass  as  a  work  of  Justin  Martyr's.  Critics  had  already  proved 
it  no  genuine  work  of  Justin,  and  if  Dr.  Overbeck  is  right,  it 
can  no  longer  be  assigned  to  the  age  of  Justin." 


SLWDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  251 

more  space  than  is  required  for  the  words  as  fjuot- 
ed.  Their  importance  in  this  discussion  does  not 
demand  for  them  any  more  room  than  was  as- 
signed them  by  the  historian  from  whom  they 
are  extracted.  The  dispute  is  not  whether  there 
is  indeed  a  Lord's  day,  for  both  parties  are  agreed 
respecting  this  question.  What  we  wish  to  as- 
certain is,  Which  day  of  the  week  is  entitled  to 
this  appellation  ?  The  reference  before  us  in  no 
Avay  helps  in  the  settlement  of  this  point.  It 
simply  states  that  the  letter  was  read  on  the 
Lord's  da,y.  Whether  that  was  the  first  or  the 
seventh  in  the  cycle  of  the  week  is  not  stated, 
so  we  pass  the  language  as  unworthy  of  further 
consideration. 

The  allusion  to  the  fifth  authority  is  even  more 
unsatisfactory  than  that  of  the  fourth.  It  seems 
that  MeJito,  bishop  of  Sardis,  had  written  a  dis- 
course on  the  Lord's  day,  which  had  been  seen  by 
Eusebius.  As  to  its  contents,  the  letter  says  not 
one  word,  neither  shall  we  ;  for,  as  it  is  not  now 
in  existence, it  is  impossible  that  any  person  should 
be  able  to  decide  which  view  it  would  favor,  pro- 
vided it  were  in  being. 

The  sixth  proof  is  brought  from  the  writings 
of  Pliny.  It  is  couched  in  these  words  :  "  They 
[the  Christians]  afiirmed  that  the  sum  of  their 
fault,  or  error,  was,  that  they  were  accustomed  to 
assemble  on  a  stated  day,  before  it  was  light,  and 
sing  praise  alternately  among  themselves,  to 
Christ,  as  God."     Without  debating  the  proprie- 


252  (.'ONSTITLTIONAL    AMi:XJJ>MKNT. 

ty  of  bringing  forward  a  heathen  writer  to  prove 
the  practice  of  a  Cliristian  church,  we  proceed  to 
examine  the  testimony  itself  Its  utter  inability 
to  fill  the  place  assigned  to  it  will  be  discerned  by 
every  intelligent  person  who  examines  its  phra- 
seology. In  it  is  the  declaration  that  Christians 
were  in  the  habit  of  assembling  on  a  stated  day, 
at  which  time  they  sang  praises  alternately 
among  themselves,  to  Christ,  as  God. 

Now  that  the  statement  of  the  facts  is  not  in- 
compatible with  the  idea  that  they  were  observ- 
ers of  the  seventh  day,  all  must  admit.  For  sure- 
ly, there  is  no  incongruity  in  the  notion  that  it 
would  be  in  the  highest  degree  proper  for  the  ob- 
servers of  the  ancient  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  to  de- 
vote its  sacred  hours  to  the  delightful  task  of 
singing  hymns  of  praise,  and  worshiping  Christ, 
as  God.  That  the  language  itself  as  completely 
harmonizes  with  this  view,  as  with  any  other,  will 
be  felt  when  we  remember  that  the  writer  does 
not  say  that  they  assembled  on  the  first  day  of 
the  w^eek,  or  the  Lord's  day,  at  all ;  but,  simply, 
that  it  was  on  a  stated  day  that  they  gathered 
themselves  together  for  the  purposes  of  worship. 
A  stated  day  is  one  which  recurs  at  fixed  inter- 
vals. The  Sabbath  might  have  been  the  stated 
day ;  or,  so  far  as  anything  to  the  contrary  in  the 
passage  is  concerned,  the  Sunday  might  have  been 
the  one.  Pliny  does  not  decide  the  point  for  us. 
His  declarations,  therefore,  have  not  the  slightest 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  253 

force  in  proving  anything  favorable  to  the  opin- 
ions of  the  gentleman. 

Furthermore,  if  inference  is  to  be  taken  at  all, 
the  preponderance  would  rather  be  in  favor  of 
the  last  day  of  the  week,  since,  in  devoting  it  to 
the  worship  of  Christ,  they  would  not  only  bring 
upon  themselves  the  wrath  of  the  heathen,  be- 
cause of  their  acknowledgment  of  our  Lord's  di- 
vinity; but,  also,  in  the  sum  of  their  fault  would 
be  found  the  fact,  that  they  ignored  the  sacred- 
ness  of  the  day  of  the  sun,  and  celebrated  an- 
other, as  holy,  by  divine  command. 

Thus  much  for  the  uninspired  witnesses,  brought 
forward  from  the  first,  and  the  early  part  of  the 
second,  century  of  the  Christian  era.  Had  they 
flatly  contradicted  what  we  have  seen  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Bible  to  be,  they  would  not  have 
moved  us  one  hair ;  for  we  remember  that  the 
great  apostle  has  said,  that,  though  ''  an  angel 
from  Heaven  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you, 
let  hiui  be  accursed."  But,  strangely  enough, 
their  testimony  is  utterly  worthless  for  the  piir- 
l)ose  for  which  it  has  been  introduced.  Not  one 
of  them  has  styled  the  Sunday  the  Lord's  day ; 
not  one  of  them  has  called  it  the  Sabbath ;  not 
one  of  them  has  stated  that  it  was  regarded  as 
holy,  or  that  its  hours  might  not,  without  sin,  be 
devoted  to  secular  pursuits.  Here,  then,  we  leave 
them,  and  wait  for  a  fresh  inundation  of  such  as 
will  answer  the  purpose  for  which  they  are  called 
in  a  more  satisfactory  manner  tlian  the  foregoing. 


254  CONSTITITTIOXAL    AMENDMENT. 


STATESMAN'S   KEPLY 


-A.  E.  T  I  o  Xj  E    E  I  a-  i-a:  'X' . 


PATRISTIC    TESTIMONY    TO   THE   FIRST-DAY 
SABBATH. 

The  testimony  pJready  adduced  from  the  early 
fathers  in  our  last  issue  will  be  regarded  by  most 
of  our  readers  as  sufficient  in  itself  But  for  the 
sake  of  giving  a  complete  view  of  the  patiistic 
testimony  to  the  first-day  Sabbath  up  to  the  close 
of  the  third  century,  we  shall  occupy  some  addi- 
tional space  with  extracts,  on  the  accuracy  of 
which  our  readers  may  confidently  rely. 

First  among  the  witnesses  now  cited  is  Irena3- 
us,  bishop  or  presbyter  of  Lyons,  A.  D.  178.  Let 
it  be  remembered  that  in  the  case  of  this  witness 
we  have  the  testimony  of  one  who  was  brought 
up  at  the  feet  of  Polycarp,  the  disciple  and  com- 
panion of  the  Apostle  John.  The  first  point  to 
be  noted  in  the  testimony  of  Iren^ieus  is  the  ab- 
rogation of  the  seventh-day  Sabbath.  As  the 
rite  of  circumcision  was  no  longer  required,  so 
the  observance  of  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  had 
ceased.  Each  was  a  sign  or  shadow  of  the  sub- 
stance to  come.  This  thought  is  dwelt  upon  at 
great  length.  (See  Contra  Ilcereses,  book  iv.  ch. 
30,  Grabe's  Edition,  Oxford,  1702,  pp.  318,  319 ; 
also  Benedictine  Edit.,  Paris,  1710,  p.  246.) 

Lest  his  statements  might  be  understood  to  be 
opposed  to  the  authority  of  the  ten  command- 
ments, Irenaeus  adds  the  following  sentences : 
''The  Lord  spoke  the  words  of  the  decalogue  in 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  ZOO 

like  manner  to  all.  They  remain,  therefore, 
permanently  with  us,  receiving,  through  the 
Lord's  advent  in  the  flesh,  extension  and  in- 
crease, not  abrogation."  (Book  iv.  ch.  31,  p.  320.) 
Thus  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  remains,  though  not 
binding  to  the  observance  of  the  seventh  day. 

We  now  come  to  this  writer's  clear  and  distinct 
testimony,  in  its  more  positive  aspect,  to  the 
Lord's  day.  Irenneus  took  a  prominent  part  in 
what  has  been  called  the  Quarta-Deciman  con- 
troversy. The  question  at  issue  was — Should  the 
anniversary  of  the  Lord's  resurrection  be  in  con- 
nection with  the  Jewish  passover,  on  whatever 
day  of  the  week  that  might  occur,  or  on  the  Lord's 
day  invariably  ?  This  question  first  arose  on  a 
visit  of  Poly  carp,  bishop  or  presbyter  of  Smyrna, 
to  Aniest,  bishop  of  Rome,  about  160,  and  was 
discussed  for  many  years.  L^enseus,  acting  as  tlie 
representative  of  the  Christians  in  Gaul,  wrote 
to  Victor,  then  bishop  of  Rome,  in  these  terms : 
*•'  The  mystery  of  the  Lord's  resurrection  should 
be  celebrated  only  on  the  Lord's  day."'  [Euseh. 
Hist.  Ecdes.  book  v.  chap.  23,  24  ;  Paris  ed.,  1678, 
pp.  155,  156.)  It  will  be  remarked  here  that 
while  there  was  diversity  of  view  in  regard  to 
the  yearly  celebration  of  the  Lord's  resurrection 
—  a  celebration  of  which  we  have  no  account 
whatever  until  the  year  160,  there  was  no  ques- 
tion concerning  the  sacred  observance  of  the  first 
day  as  the  vjeeldy  commemoration  of  the  Lord's 
rising  from  the  dead. 

We  simply  add  a  reference  to  one  of  the  best 
known  of  the  fragments  of  Irenseus  in  which 
there  is  further  explicit  testimony  to  the  Lord's 
day — testimony  all  the  more  important,  because 
it  occurs  incidentallv  in  a  treatise  concernino-  the 


256  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

passover,  and  in  connection  with  a  statement  in 
regard  to  Pentecost."  {Fragmentwni  lib.  de  Pas- 
cha,  Bened.  ed.,  Paris,  1742,  p.  490.*) 

For  the  sake  of  presenting  a  complete  view  of 
the  testimony  of  the  fathers  for  the  first  three 
centuries,  we  had  thought  of  quoting  from  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  194;  Minucius  Felix,  210; 
Commodian,  about  270;  Yictorinus,  290;  and 
Peter,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  300.  But  as  the 
testimony  will  be  perfectly  conclusive  without 
these  witnessess,  and  as  space  is  valuable,  we 
shall   cite   only   three    more    authorities — three 

*  The  culpable  carelessness  of  Dwight,  Wilson,  and  other  au- 
thors, in  citing  from  the  early  fathers,  is  nowhere  more  notice- 
able than  in  the  case  of  Ireuajus.  These  writers  quote  him  as 
saying  :  '"  On  the  Lord's  day,  every  one  of  us  Christians,  keeps 
the  Sabbath,  meditating  on  the  law,  and  rejoicing  in  the  works 
of  God."  There  is  no  reference  given  to  the  writings  of  Irenceus. 
And  for  good  reason.  After  a  most  careful  examination,  we 
are  persuaded  no  such  passage  is  to  be  found  in  his  writings. 
The  mistake  was  probably  first  made  by  President  Dwight,  whose 
weakness  of  sight  compelled  him  to  depend  upon  an  amanuensis. 
"For  twenty  years  of  bis  presidency,"  we  are  informed  by  his  bi- 
ographer, "he  was  rarely  able  to  read  so  much  as  a  single  chap- 
ter in  the  Bible  in  the  twenty-four  hours."  {Dwight' s  T/ieology, 
London,  1821,  vol.  i.  pp.  9i,  95.)  Others  followed  this  high  au- 
thority. 

In  order  to  guard  our  readers  against  injuring  the  cause  they 
would  advance,  Ave  must  mention  another  important  instance  of 
censurable  negligence.  In  a  number  of  works  on  the  Sabbath, 
Dr.  Justin  Edwards'  "  Sabbath  Manual,"  for  example,  we  find  not 
only  the  blunders  already  noticed,  but  another  quite  as  bad.  The 
language — "Both  custom  and  reason  challenge  from  us  that 
we  should  honor  the  Lord's  day,  seeing  on  that  day  it  was  that 
our  Lord  Jesus  completed  his  resurrection  from  the  dead,"  is  as- 
cribed to  Theophilus,  bishop  of  Antioch,  about  a.  p.  1G2.  The 
words  quoted  are  in  reality  those  of  another  Theophilus,  who  was 
bishop  of  Alexandria,  at  the  close  of  the  fourth  century.  We 
hand  over  these  criticisms  upon  advocates  of  the  first-day  Sab- 
bath to  our  seventh-day  Sabbatarian  friends,  trusting  to  their 
honor  and  fairness  not  to  separate  them  from  the  rest  of  this  dis- 
cussion. For  our  own  part,  whether  it  may  be  pleasant  to  the 
advocates  of  the  seventh-day  Sabbath,  we  desire  to  have  for  our- 
selves, and  to  aid  others  to  have,  the  whole  truth.  It  was  in  this 
spirit  that  we  gave  room  in  our  columns  for  a  full  presentation  of 
the  arguments  on  tl^e  other  side  of  this  (luestion. 


.SLNDAV    AM)    THE    SAIJDATII.  'JO  i 

well-knuwii  fathers,  Tcrtullian,  Origon,  and  Cyp- 
rian. 

At  the  close  of  the  second  century,  Carthage, 
tlie  metropolis  of  Northern  Africa,  was  the  cen- 
ter of  numerous  flourishing  Christian  congrega- 
tions. Living  in  Carthage  for  many  years,  Tcr- 
tullian knc\y  v/ell  the  practice  of  the  African 
churches.  And  although  he  became,  about  202, 
one  of  the  errorists  known  as  Montanists,  his 
testimony,  however  unreliable  as  to  doctrines,  is 
still  indisputable  as  to  facts.  From  the  frequent 
references  to  the  Lord's  day  in  this  author  we  se- 
lect the  following :  "  By  us,  to  whom  the  [Jew- 
ish] Sabbaths  are  strange,  and  the  new  moons 
and  festivals  once  pleasing  to  God,  the  Satur- 
nalia, January,  and  mid-winter  feasts,  and  Mat- 
i-onalia  [of  the  heathen]  are  frequented.  O  bet- 
ter fidelity  of  the  heathen  to  their  own  religion ! 
They  would  not  share  with  us  the  Lord's  day, 
nor  Pentecost,  even  if  they  knew  them,  for  they 
would  fear  lest  they  should  seem  to  be  Chris- 
tians." (De  Idolatria,  cap.  xiv,  Semler's  edit., 
Halie  Magdeburg,  vol.  iv.,  pp.,  167,  168.)  The 
testimony  of  this  passage  is  decisive  in  three 
points :  (1.)  The  Jewish,  or  seventh- day,  Sabbath 
was  not  observed  by  Christians.  (2.)  They  were 
enjoined  not  to  observe  heathen  festivals.  (3.)  To 
the  Lord's  day,  as  the  proper  day  for  Christian 
service,  belonged  the  honor  to  which  Jewish  and 
heathen  days  had  no  claim. 

The  exercises  of  the  Lord's  day,  when  Chris- 
tians assembled  for  public  service,  are  described 
1  :>y  Tertullian  in  a  manner  very  similar  to  that  of 
Justin  Ma.rtyr,  whose  account  has  ali-eady  been 
quoted.     Prayer,  reading  the  Scriptures,  exhor- 

Cou.  Am.  17  B 


2.")^  coxsTiTrrroxAL  amfad.mi^xt. 

tations,  and  collections  for  benevolent  puv])oses 
are  all  mentioned.  (Aj^ol.,  cap.  xxxix,  vol.  v., 
pp.  92-94.)  It  is  to  be  noted  that  Tertullian,  like 
Justin  Martyr,  in  addressing  the  heathen,  calls 
the  first  day  of  the  week  "  the  day  of  the  Sun," 
as  he  also  designates  the  Jewish  Sabbath  by  its 
heathen  name.     (See  ApoL,  cap.  xvi.) 

We  close  these  citations  from  Tertullian,  with 
one  which  is  of  the  greatest  importance  in  prov- 
ing that  the  early  Christians  observed  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  not  as  a  mere  holiday,  but  as  a 
day  of  rest  and  worship — a  hol}^  Sabbatli  to  the 
Lord :  "  On  the  Lord's  day,  the  day  of  the  Res- 
urrection, we  should  not  only  abstain  from  that,* 
[bending  the  knee,]  but  also  from  all  anxiety  of 
feeling,  and  from  employments,  setting  aside  all 
business,  lest  we  should  give  place  to  the  devil." 
(De  Oratione,  cap.  xxiii.,  vol.  iv.,  p.  22.) 

Contemporary  with  Tertullian  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  third  centuiy  was  Origen  of  Al- 
exandria, one  of  the  most  scholarly  and  learned 
of  all  the  early  fathers.  This  writer  contrasts 
the  Lord's  day  with  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  and 
shows  the  superiority  of  the  former.  We  may 
not  agree  with  him  when  he  maintains  that  the 
superiority  was  indicated  by  the  giving  of  manna 
to  the  Israelites  on  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
while  it  was  withheld  on  the  seventh.     His  test- 

*As  a  matter  of  independent  interest  ond  importance,  we  would 
ask  all  who  are  interested  in  the  question  of  the  posture  in  prayer 
of  worshipers  in  the  earlj  church,  to  compare  with  TertuUian's 
statement,  that  of  Peter,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  a.  d.  SCO,  who 
says  :  "  We  keep  the  Lord's  day  as  a  day  of  joy,  because  of  Him 
wlio  rose  on  that  day,  on  which  we  have  learned  not  to  bow  the 
knee."  {BibL  Patrum,  apud  Gallcmd,  vol.  iv..  p.  lOT.)  To  the 
same  effect  is  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  a.  d,  325,  re- 
quiring, as  there  were  certain  ones  who  bent  the  knee  on  the 
Lord's  day,  that  it  should  be  the  uniform  practice  to  give  thanks 
to  tJod,  standinj^.     {Canon,  xx.) 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SAnRATH.  2.')9 

imony  to  the  fact  of  the  sacred  observance  of  the 
Lord's  day  instead  of  the  seventh- day  Sabbath 
is  valid,  though  his  i-easons  for  the  admitted  su- 
periority may  not  all  be  satisfactory.  In  the 
same  connection  he  remarks :  "  On  our  Lord's 
day  the  Lord  always  rains  manna  from  heaven." 
(Comment  on  Exodus,  Delarue's  ed,  of  Works  of 
Origen,  Paris,  1733,  vol.  ii.,  p.  154.)  In  another 
of  his  works  he  contends  that  it  is  one  of  the  ev- 
idences of  a  true  Christian  "  always  to  keep  the 
Lord's  day."  (Contra  Celsurn,  lib.  viii.,  vol.  i., 
pp.  758,  759.) 

The  most  important  passage  in  the  writings  of 
Origen  is  found  in  his  Homilies  on  the  Book  of 
Numbers.  Here  we  first  meet  with  the  name 
"  Christian  Sabbath "  for  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  or  the  Lord's  day :  "'  Leaving,  then,  the 
Jewish  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  let  us  see 
what  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  by  the 
Christian  ought  to  be.  On  the  Sabbath  should 
be  performed  no  worldly  acts.  If,  therefore,  you 
desist  from  all  secular  works,  and  do  nothing  of 
a  w^orldly  nature,  but  occupy  yourselves  with  spir- 
itual duties,  assembling  at  the  church,  listening 
to  the  sacred  readings  and  instructions,  thinking 
of  celestial  things,  concerned  for  the  hopes  of  an- 
other life,  keeping  before  your  eyes  the  Judgment 
to  come,  and  looking  not  at  the  things  which  are 
present  and  visible,  but  at  those  which  are  invis- 
ble  and  future — this  is  the  observance  of  the 
Christian  Sabbath."  (Horn,  xxiii  in  Nunieros, 
vol.  ii.,  p.  358.) 

Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage,  about  the  third 
century,  gives  this  explicit  testimony  to  the 
Lord's  da}^ :  "  Since  in  the  Jewish  circumcision  of 
the  flesh  the  eighth  day  was  celebrated,  the  or- 


260  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

dinance  was  foreshadowed  in  the  future,  but  com- 
pleted in  truth  at  the  coming  of  Christ.  For  in- 
asmuch as  the  eighth  day,  that  is,  the  first  day 
after  the  Sabbath,  was  the  day  on  which  the 
Lord  rose  and  gave  us  life  and  spiritual  circum- 
cision, this  eighth  day,  that  is,  the  first  after  the 
Sabbath  and  the  Lord's  day,  preceded  in  an  im- 
age, which  image  ceased  when  the  truth  after- 
wards came,  and  spiritual  circumcision  was  given 
to  us."  {Epistle  Ixiv.,  Works  of  Cyprian,  Bre- 
ma^  1G90,  vol.  ii.,  p.  161.)  The  we'ight  of  this 
testimony  is  not  a  little  augmented  by  the  fact 
that  the  epistle  in  which  it  is  found  is  a  synod- 
ical  epistle,  which  was  sent  forth  in  the  name 
and  with  the  authority  of  the  Third  Council  of 
Carthage,  A.  D.  253.  The  epistle  bears  this  in- 
scription at  its  head :  "  Cyprianus  et  ceteri  Colle- 
g?e  qui  in  concilio  afilierant  numero  LXIV.  Fido 
patri  Salutem." 

With  this  authoritative  statement  of  Cyprian 
and  his  sixty-six  colleagues,  or  co-presbyters,  we 
close  our  citations  from  the  fathers.  The  testi- 
mony of  succeeding  writers  is  equally  clear,  but 
it  simply  confirms  what  has  already  been  fully 
proved.  And  now,  with  the  facts  of  history  in 
view,  as  we  have  learned  tliem  from  inspired 
writers  and  their  immediate  successors,  it  remains 
for  us  to  examine  opposing  theories  of  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Sabbath.  We  shall  endeavor  to 
dispose  of  this  concluding,  and  perhaps  most  in- 
teresting part  of  our  subject,  in  two  or  three  ar- 
ticles. 


Sl'NDW    AM)    TI.'!']    SA  !!i!ATir.  '2C)  [ 


A    HE  JOINI)Ii:K. 


"  PATRISTIC  EVIDENCE  TO  THE  FIRST-DAY 
SABBATH." 

In  the  rejoinder  to  the  previous  article  on  pa- 
tristic testimony,  the  attention  of  the  reader  was 
called  to  the  fact  that  our  opponent  had  utterly 
failed  to  find  a  single  instance  in  which  the  first 
day  of  the  week  was  called  the  Lord's  day,  by 
the  authorities  which  he  cited,  or  in  which  it  Avas 
stated  by  them  that  it  was  observed  b}^  divine 
command.  Had  we  possessed  the  space  necessary 
for  the  purpose,  the  significance  of  this  failure 
would  have  been  enlarged  upon ;  for  it  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that  in  the  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
nine  years  which  intervened  between  the  death 
of  Christ  and  the  writing  of  the  latest  cita- 
tion produced  in  his  seventh  article,  lies  the  most 
important,  and  the  most  promising,  field  for  such 
testimonials  as  would  be  of  the  hiojhest  value  to 
the  opposition.  This  is  so,  not  only  from  the  fact 
that  the  period  in  question  was  the  one  in  which 
it  is  alleged  that  the  transition  from  the  old  to 
the  new  Sabbath  occurred  ;  but,  also,  because  it 
was  one,  which,  from  their  premises,  was  the 
most  likely  to  yield  reliable  evidence  in  regard 
to  apostolic  faith,  since  it  lay  the  nearest  to  apos- 
tolic times.  It  is  true  that  even  then  apostasy 
had  begun  its  career ;  for  Paul  states  that,  in  his 


262  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

time,  "  the  mystery  of  iniquity  had  begun  to 
work." 

But  ail  will  agree  that  the  farther  we  come 
this  side  of  the  fountain-head,  the  more  natural  it 
would  be  to  find  that  the  pure  waters  of  the  orig- 
inal stream  should  become  steadily  darker  and 
more  turbid,  until  they  lost  themselves  in  the 
sloughs  of  those  corrupt  teachings,  which  were  so 
far  to  excel  all  others,  that  they  were  thought  to 
be  of  a  nature  to  demand  especial  attention  in 
the  prophecies.  But  here  we  are,  as  already  re- 
marked, seventy-five  to  eighty  years  this  side 
of  the  cross,  and  the  case  of  our  reviewer  in  no- 
wise helped  by  his  effort.  In  fact,  not  only  has 
he  failed  to  place  his  Sabbath  upon  the  foundation 
of  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  but  he  has  also 
greatly  weakened  his  probabilities  for  the  future, 
since  in  the  territory  over  which  we  have  passed, 
we  have  seen  not  only  the  utter  unreliability  of 
the  fathers  themselves,  as  teachers,  but,  also,  that 
their  sayings  have  been  tampered  with  by  the 
''  man  of  sin,"  who,  reaching  backward  as  well  as 
forward,  is  reckless  in  his  efforts  to  make  every- 
thing contribute  to  the  power  and  authority  of 
the  hierarchy. 

But  we  must  proceed  in  the  examination  of 
those  individuals  who  are  now  introduced  as  ad- 
ditional witnesses  for  the  Christian  Sabbath. 
The  first  in  order  is  Iren?eus,  Bishop  of  Lyons, 
A.  D.  178.  It  will  not  be  necessary  to  consider 
the   language   of  the   gentleman,  in   which    lie 


SUNDAY    AND    THK    SAliBATIf.  203 

states  that  Irenseus  taught  the  abrogation  of  the 
seventh-day  Sabbath,  since  we  have  not  quoted 
that  fatlier  in  the  defense  of  an  institution  which 
God  has  covunanded.  Nor  shall  we  enlaro^e 
upon  the  fact  that  Irena3us  inculcates  the  bind- 
inof  obli^cation  of  the  ten  commandments,  since  it 
is  enough  for  us  to  know  that  this  doctrine  is 
plainly  set  forth  in  the  Bible. 

The   witness    is   the    gentleman's.      He    has 

o 

brought  him  forward  to  prove  that,  in  his  time, 
the  year  of  our  Lord  178,  the  term,  Lord's  day, 
was  applied  to  the  Sunday.  Has  he  succeeded, 
at  last,  in  the  achievement  of  his  purpose  ?  If 
so,  it  is  the  first  instance  in  which  he  has  accom- 
plished the  desired  object.  Apparently,  he  has 
triumphed  here.  But  let  us  proceed  with  caution. 
Has  he  produced  the  writings  of  Irena3us  him- 
self? No,  he  has  not.  The  words  quoted  are 
these  :  "  The  mystery  of  the  Lord's  resurrection 
should  be  celebrated  only  on  the  Lord's  day." 
By  turning  to  the  Hist,  of  Eusebius,  book  v., 
chap.  28,  the  reader  will  find  that  the  language 
employed  does  not  purport  to  be  that  of  Iren^eus, 
as  penned  by  himself,  but  that  of  Eusebius,  who 
is  giving  an  account  of  a  decree  passed  by  cer- 
tain bishops,  which  decree  was  in  harmony  w^ith 
a  letter  from  Irenoeus.  We  quote  enough  in  the 
23d  chapter  to  verify  our  statement : — 

"  Hence  there  were  synods  and  convocations  of 
the  bishops,  on  this  question;  and  all  unanimous- 
ly drew  up  an  ecclesiastical  decree,  which  they 


2GI  CONSTITUTIONAL    A^[^:Xl).■\rEXT. 

communicated  to  all  the  cliiirches,  in  all  places, 
that  the  mystery  of  oiu-  Lord's  resurrection 
should  be  celebrated  on  no  other  day  than  the 
Lord's  day ;  and  that  on  this  day  alone  we  should 
observe  the  close  of  the  paschal  fasts.  There  is 
an  epistle  extant,  even  now,  of  those  who  were 
assembled  at  the  time.  .  .  .  There  is  an  epis- 
tle extant,  on  the  same  question,  bearing  the 
name  of  Victor.  An  epistle,  also,  of  the  bishops 
of  Pontus,  among  whom  Palmas,  as  the  most  an- 
cient, presided;  also  of  the  churches  of  Gaul, 
over  whom  Irenseus  presided,  .  .  .  and  epistles 
from  many  others,  who,  advancing  one  and  the 
same  doctrine,  also  passed  the  same  vote,  and  this 
their  unanimous  determination  was  the  one  al- 
ready mentioned." 

It  will  be  observed  here  that  the  historian  does 
not  quote  the  language  of  the  decree  as  being 
the  exact  language  of  the  bishops ;  also  that  he 
does  not  pretend  to  give  the  precise  words  of 
Iren?eus,  but  that  he  simply  recounts  the  fact 
that  the  epistle  of  Iren?eus  was  in  harmony  with 
the  decree  which  he  had  previously  given.  This 
it  was  legitimate  for  a  historian  to  do.  Eusebius 
died  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  Irenasus, 
and  in  his  time,  v/e  frankly  admit  that  the  tei'm, 
Lord's  day,  was  frequently  applied  to  the  first 
day  of  the  week.  The  historian,  therefore,  using 
the  nomenclature  of  his  own  period,  represents 
the  bishop  of  Lyons  as  favoring  the  celebration  of 
the  passover  on  the  Lord's  day,  simply  because 


SUNDAY    AND    TIIK    SArnJATH.  20f) 

he  held  said  it  ought  to  be  observed  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week.  If  \ye  are  right  in  this,  tlien, 
of  course,  our  opponents  will  throw  up  the 
whole  passage  as  irrelevant  to  their  present  pur- 
pose— since  they  have  not  assumed  to  employ 
Eusebius,  who  lived  in  the  fourth  century,  as  a 
witness — but  have  cited  his  statement  because  it 
was  supposed  to  contain  the  declaration  of  Trc- 
n?eus,  who  lived  at  a  much  earlier  period. 

For  the  purpose  of  clinching  the  argument, 
and  showing  that  the  historic  fact  is  in  harmony 
with  what  we  have  said,  we  quote  the  following 
on  the  point  from  Eld.  J.  N.  Andrews,  in  which 
it  will  be  seen  that  in  the  original,  the  term,  first 
day  of  the  week,  and  not  the  Lord's  day,  as  sup- 
]^osed,  might  have  been  employed  : — 

"  Observe  .  .  .  Eusebius  does  not  quote  the 
words  of  any  of  these  bishops,  but  simply  gives 
their  decisions  in  his  own  lano-uaae.  There  is, 
therefore,  no  proof  that  they  used  the  term. 
Lord's  day,  instead  of  first  day  of  the  week  ;  for 
the  introduction  to  the  fiftieth  fragment  of  his 
lost  wiitings,  already  quoted,  gives  an  ancient 
statement  of  his  words  in  this  decision,  as  plain 
first  day  of  the  week.  It  is  Eusebius  who  gives 
us  the  term,  Lord's  day,  in  recording  what  was 
said  by  these  bishops  concerning  the  first  day  of 
the  week." 

That  which  has  been  said  above  in  reference 
to  the  testimony  found  in  book  v.,  chap.  23,  of 
Eusebius,  will  largely  apply,  in  principle,  to  the 


266  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

citation  found  in  chap.  24,  of  the  same  book.  In 
the  latter,  as  in  the  former,  case,  the  histoiian  is 
not  giving  the  exact  utterance  of  Irenseus,  but 
simply  declares,  in  substance,  his  decision  in  re- 
gard to  the  proper  time  for  the  celebration  of  the 
passover  festival. 

Before  passing  from  Irenteus  to  the  considera- 
tion of  another  case  of  the  fathers,  it  would  be 
proper  to  commend  the  candor  of  our  opponent, 
as  manifested  in  his  heart}^  condemnation  of  the 
looseness  of  D wight  and  others  in  their  state- 
ments of  historic  facts.  In  making  the  conces- 
sion which  the  gentleman  has,  he  will  doubtless 
bring  upon  himself  the  condemnation  of  those 
who  exalt  success  above  truth.  He  has  taken 
from  such  one  of  their  most  potent  weapons. 
The  lanoruaofe  of  Irenteus,  which  is  here  admitted 
to  be  of  spurious  origin,  has  figured  la^rgely  in 
the  discussion  of  this  question,  in  the  past.  It 
was  pointed  and  decisive,  and  seemed  to  furnish 
just  the  material  necessary  to  the  satisfactory 
making  out  of  a  case,  otherwise  sadly  deficient 
in  the  proofs  which  it  needed.  It  will,  therefore, 
be  yielded  up  with  reluctance.  Nevertheless,  we 
hope  that  the  acknowledgment,  made  by  our  op- 
ponent in  this  article,  will  lead  clergymen,  for  the 
future,  to  desist  from  the  use  of  it,  until  they  are 
able  to  refute  what  the  writer  in  the  Statesman 
here  asserts. 

In  the  meanwhile,  the  reader  must  not  allow 
himself  to  suppose  tliat  the  gentleman,  by  saying 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  2G7 

wliat  lie  has,  has  really  brought  Sabbatarians  un- 
der obliscation  to  him  for  new  lio^ht,  since  what 
he  hero  asserts  is  but  a  fact  with  which  they  have 
been  familiar  for  years,  and  which  they  have  it- 
erated and  re-iterated  until  they  have  almost  de- 
spaired of  bringing  their  opponents  to  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  real  state  of  things.  Oc- 
casionally, others  outside  of  their  ranks  have,  as 
does  the  gentleman,  borne  testimony  to  the  ac- 
curacy of  their  statements.  If  the  reader  would 
have  an  illustration  of  this,  taken  from  the  writ- 
ings of  an  an ti- Sabbatarian  author,  he  will  find  it 
in  the  works  of  Domville,  in  which,  substantially, 
the  same  conclusions  are  reached,  Mr.  Domville 
not  only  tracing  the  mistake  to  Dr.  Dwight,  but 
also  showing  that  the  language  cited  was  proba- 
bly taken  from  the  interpolated  epistle  of  Igna- 
tius to  the  Magnesians. 

Up  to  this  point,  we  have  carefully  examined, 
one  by  one,  the  historic  quotations  from  ancient 
writers,  v/liich  have  been  presented  for  our  con- 
sideration ;  henceforth,  we  shall  pursue  a  differ- 
ent course.  As  we  have  now  reached,  in  the 
person  of  TertuUian,  the  close  of  the  second,  and 
the  opening  of  the  third,  century  of  the  Christian 
era,  we  find  ourselves  in  a  period  when  it  is  so  gen- 
erally acknowledged  that  the  work  of  apostasy 
was  so  manifest  that  the  utterances  of  the  men  of 
those  times — even  though  they  were  pointed  and 
explicit  in  regard  to  the  sanctity  of  the  first  day 
of  the  week,  as  looked  upon   by  themselves — 


208  COXSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

could  furnish  no  reliable  standard  of  Christian 
faith  in  our  day. 

The  gentleman  himself  is  compelled  to  iidmit 
that  his  own  witness,  TertuUian,  became,  in  the 
second  year  of  the  third  century,  an  ardent  advo- 
cate of  the  errors,  follies,  and  heresies,  of  Montanus. 
Not  only  so,  but  the  writings  of  that  fatlier  are 
proverbial,  among  scholars,  for  the  fanciful  con- 
ceits and  the  false  notions  which  are  so  conspic- 
uous upon  their  pages.  Tertullian  was  a  fiery 
zealot  and  a  bitter  partisan,  manifestly  credulous 
beyond  bounds,  and  more  earnest  for  his  sect  than 
anxious  for  the  reliability  of  the  sources  of  his 
information.  Zell,  in  his  popular  Encyclopedia, 
speaks  of  him  as  follows  : — 

"  After  he  was  past  middle  age,  he  embraced 
the  doctrines  of  Montanus,  to  which  his  ardent, 
sensuous  imagination,  and  ascetic  tendencies 
would  incline  him.  He  is  said  to  have  been  de- 
termined to  that  course  by  the  ill-treatment  he 
received  from  the  Roman  clergy.  Whether  he 
remained  a  Montanist  till  his  death,  cannot  be 
decided They  [his  works]  are  char- 
acterized by  vast  learning,  profound  and  compre- 
hensive thought,  fiery  imagination,  and  passion- 
ate partisanship,  leading  into  exaggeration  and 
sophistry.     His  style  is  frequently  obscure." 

Montanus  was  a  false  prophet  of  the  second 
century,  who  believed  himself  to  have  received, 
from  the  Holy  Ghost,  revelations  which  were 
withheld  from  the  apostles ;    he  denied  the  doc- 


«UXDAV  AND  THE  SABUATU.  260 

trine  of  the  trinit}^,  the  propriety  of  second  mar- 
riage, and  the  forgiveness  of  certain  sins.  The 
disciple  of  such  a  man  is  surely  a  strange  witness 
to  be  found  in  the  employ  of  orthodoxy.  Should 
his  appearance,  however,  be  excused,  as  it  is  above, 
by  the  statement  that  he  was  introduced,  not  be- 
cause of  the  reliability  of  his  own  opinion,  but 
simply  to  testify  of  the  usage  of  his  own  times ; 
it  may  be  replied,  first,  that  an  ardent  partisan, 
a  person  of  strong  imagination,  and  a  notorious 
heretic,  is  hardly  qualified  to  speak  reliably,  even 
in  a  matter  of  this  nature,  since,  from  the  very 
constitution  of  his  mind,  he  would  almost  of  ne- 
cessity allow  what  he  said  to  be  warped  by  prej- 
udice, or  biased  by  conceptions  of  interest ;  sec- 
ondly, that  in  the  quotation  presented  from  his 
pen,  it  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that,  instead  of 
asserting  a  general  usage  of  Sunday-keeping,  he 
is  manifestly  finding  fault  with  a  large  class  of 
his  fellow- Christians  for  not  regarding  the  day 
in  the  same  light,  and  observing  it  with  the  same 
rigor,  that  he  did ;  thirdly,  that  it  is  by  no  means 
impossible  that  the  very  men,  whom  in  his  fiery 
zeal  he  thus  upbraids,  v/ere,  after  all,  sounder  than 
himself  in  the  faith,  and  would,  could  they  be 
fairly  heard  upon  this  subject,  vindicate  their 
supposed  desecration  of  the  first  day,  from  the 
same  grounds  as  do  the  Sabbatarians  now,  i.  e., 
because  they  did  not  look  upon  it  as  holy  time. 

If  the  above  responses  are  not  satisfactory,  and 
if  it  be  insisted  that  the  testimony  of  the  witness 


'2ii)  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

shall,  after  ail,  be  received,  tlien  we  propose  that 
he  be  called  to  the  stand  once  moi-e,  and  be  al- 
lowed to  fill  up  the  measure  of  what  he  has  to 
say  upon  this  subject.  We  have  seen  that,  ac- 
cording to  his  opinion,  many  of  his  fellow-disci- 
ples were  lax  in  their  Sunday-keeping  habits, 
and  that  to  one  who  believed  that  no  labor  should 
be  performed  upon  it,  whatever,  they  treated 
it  very  much  as  men  would  treat  a  mere  festival 
occasion.  But  where  did  Tertullian  and  his  sym- 
pathizers obtain  their  notions  of  the  manner  in 
which  Sunday  should  be  kept  ?  Wa.s  it  from  the 
Scriptures  ?  We  shall  see  ;  here  is  the  witness  ; 
let  him  speak  for  himself: 

"  As  often  as  the  anniversary  comes  around,  we 
make  offerings  for  the  dead  as  birtli-day  honors. 
We  count  fasting  or  kneeling  in  worship  on  the 
Lord's  day,  to  be  unlawful.  We  rejoice  in  the 
same  privilege,  also,  from  Easter  to  Whitsunday. 
We  feel  pained  should  any  wine  or  bread,  though 
our  own,  be  cast  upon  the  ground.  At  every  for- 
ward step  and  movement,  at  every  going  in  and 
out,  when  we  put  on  our  clothes  and  slioes,  when 
we  bathe,  when  we  sit  at  table,  when  we  lio^ht 
the  lamps,  on  couch,  on  seat,  in  all  the  ordinary 
actions  of  daily  life,  we  trace  upon  the  forehead 
the  sign  (of  the  cross).  If  for  these  and  other 
such  rules,  you  insist  upon  having  positive 
Scripture  injunctions,  you  will  find  none.  Tra- 
dition will  be  held  forth  to  you  as  the  originator 
of  tliem,  custom,  as  their  strengthenei',  and  faitb. 


SIXDAV    AND    THR    SAHIiArir.  271 

as  their  obsci'N'cr.  That  reason  will  support  tra- 
dition, and  custom,  and  faith,  you  will  either 
yourself  perceive,  or  learn  from  some  one  who 
has." — De  Corona,  sects.  3  and  4. 

The  reader  will  at  once  observe  that  tradition 
is  the  foundation  which  is  here  laid  for  that  kind 
of  Sunday  observance  for  which  Tertullian  was 
so  great  a  stickler.  Not  only  so,  but  the  fact  is 
brought  to  light,  also,  that  the  men  wdiom  he 
represented  were  in  the  habit  of  offering  prayers 
for  the  dead ;  of  signing  themselves  Avith  the  sign 
of  the  cross  ;  and  going  through  other  ceremonies, 
which  to  us,  at  the  present  time,  are  not  only  ri- 
diculous in  the  extreme,  but  bear  upon  their  face 
the  impress  of  the  man  of  sin  so  unmistakably 
that  none  will  be  deceived. 

If  Tertullian  was  indeed  a  fair  specimen  of  the 
Christian  men  of  his  time ;  if  his  writings  have 
not  been  tampered  with ;  and  if  the  opinions  of 
the  men  of  his  day,  as  expressed  by  himself, 
should  have  w^eight  wdth  us  in  the  decision  of 
religious  questions,  where  shall  we  stop  in  our  ac- 
ceptance of  their  creeds  ?  If,  because  they  be- 
lieved with  him  in  the  change  of  the  Sabbath  from 
the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  this  fact 
should  have  weio^ht  with  us  in  bring^ino^  us  to  the 
same  conclusion,  independently  of  Scripture  proof, 
then  how  can  we  stop  short  of  their  faith  in  oth- 
er particulars  ?  such  as  the  acceptance  of  tradi- 
tion in  doctrinal  matters,  prayers  for  the  dead, 
the  sio-n  of  the  cross,  etc.,  etc.     h\  fact,  liow  can 


2/2  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

we  avoid  becoming  papists  ourselves,  in  the  larg- 
est sense  of  the  term,  since,  having  gone  as  far  as 
we  have  for  the  purpose  of  making  out  Sunday 
sanctity,  we  have  surrendered  nearly  all  the  dis- 
tinctive principles  of  Protestantism  ? 

Of  course  each  individual  is  at  liberty  to  use 
his  own  discretion  as  to  the  measure  of  confidence 
which  he  will  give  to  the  writings  before  us  ;  so 
far  as  we  are  concerned,  personall}^,  we  would  not 
attach  to  them  the  slio-htest  weio^ht  in  the  decis- 
ion  of  a  grave  religious  question.  From  the  very 
nature  of  that  which  has  been  already  cited,  it  is 
manifestly  a  serious  slander  upon  the  true  church 
of  the  second,  and  the  first  part  of  the  third,  cent- 
ury, to  hold  them  responsible  for  the  fanciful 
conceits  and  destructive  errors  of  this  reputed  de- 
fender of  the  faith. 

Certain  it  is,  that  if  Tertullian  is  correctly  re- 
ported, his  writings  are  not  a  safe  criterion  of  the 
sentiments  of  the  Christians  of  his  age  in  very 
many  points,  and  it  may  be  fairly  concluded,  that 
among  them  is  that  concerning  the  Sabbath,  since 
what  he  has  said  of  it  finds  no  warrant  in  the 
open  Bible,  which  the  men  of  this  day  hold  in 
their  hands.  Not  only  is  what  he  has  written 
absurd  and  dangerous  in  the  extreme,  but  his 
productions  are  characterized  by  the  most  glar- 
ing contradictions.  Another  has  said  of  him : 
"It  would  be  wiser  for  Christianity,  retreating 
upon  its  genuine  records  in  the  New  Testament, 
to  disclaim  this  fierce  African,  than  identify  itself 


SUxVDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  li  /  O 

witli  his  furious  invectives,  by  unsatisfactory 
apologies  for  their  unchristian  fanaticisms."  (Mil- 
man,  in  note  on  Gibbon's  Dec.  and  Fall  of  the 
Rom.  Emp.,  chap,  xv.) 

We  leave  him,  therefore,  with  his  follies  and 
foibles,  his  errors  and  faults,  his  assertions  and 
contradictions,  with  those  who  have  a  taste  for 
this  kind  of  literature. 

AVith  the  case  of  Origen  it  will  not  be  neces- 
sary that  much  time  should  be  consumed.  Mr. 
Mosheim  has  well  remarked  of  him,  that  had 
"the  justice  of  his  judgment  been  equal  to  the 
immensity  of  his  genius,  the  fervor  of  his  piety, 
his  indefatigable  patience,  his  extensive  erudition, 
and  his  other  eminent  and  superior  talents,  all 
encomium  must  have  fallen  short  of  his  merits." 
Unfortunately,  however,  with  an  erudition  which 
was  truly  remarkable,  he  united  a  credulity  al- 
most without  parallel.  So  numerous  and  so  grave 
were  the  errors  of  his  personal  faith,  that  his  in- 
dividual opinions,  unsupported  by  facts  and  ar- 
guments, are  utterly  A\'orthless  in  the  decision  of 
any  theological  proposition.  Having  adopted  the 
mystical  system  of  interpreting  the  Scriptures,  he 
reached  conclusions  utterly  unsound  and  prepos- 
terous in  many  cases. 

That  this  is  so,  the  orthodox  reader  will  at 
once  perceive,  when  we  state,  first,  that  he  was  a 
believer  in  the  pre-existence  of  the  human  soul, 
and  that  souls  were  condemned  to  animate  mor- 

Con.  Am.  18  23 


274  COXSTITUTION^VL    AMF.Nl)>rENT. 

tal  bodies,  because  of  sins  committed  in  a  pre- 
existent  state  ;  secondly,  that  lie  was  a  Restora- 
tion! st,  and  believed  in  the  final  universal  salva- 
tion of  all  men,  after  enduring  long  periods  of 
punishment.  Nor  does  the  advocacy  of  such  sen- 
timents furnish  the  only  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
his  testimony,  as  drawn  from  his  vv^itings  now 
extant.  There  would  indeed  be  some  satisfaction 
derived  from  the  study  of  these  documents,  fan- 
ciful though  they  might  appear  to  be  in  many 
respects,  if  we  could  only  feel  assured  that  they 
represented  corrcctl}^  the  sentiments  of  the  al- 
leged author. 

Unhappily,  this  is  not  the  case.  Those  who 
admire  Origen  most,  while  attributing  much  in 
what  he  is  said  to  have  written,  to  that  weak- 
ness of  discrimination  which  is  everywhere  so 
manifest  in  his  productions,  are  compelled  to  go 
beyond  this,  in  order  to  explain  many  of  the 
grosser  views  therein  contained,  by  admitting 
that  they  were  not  his  own,  but  that  they  are 
the  result  of  fraud  and  interpolation. 

On  this  point,  another,  Avith  great  candor  and 
friendly  charity,  when  speaking  of  the  sect 
known  as  Origenists,  after  first  stating  that  "he 
was  a  man  of  great  talents,  and  a  most  indefati- 
o'able  student,  but  havino^  a  stron*]:  attachment  to 
the  Platonic  philosophy,  and  a  natural  turn  to 
mystical  and  allegorical  interpretations,  which 
led  him  to  corrupt  greatly  the  simplicity  of  the 
gospel,  declares  that  these  circumstances  render 


ilNDAV    AM)     THi:    SA}!!:ATH, 


it  very  difficult  to  ascertain  exactly  what  liis  real 
sentiments  were. '  He  says,  also,  "  1.  Being  a 
man  of  unquestionable  talents  and  high  charac- 
ter, his  genuine  works  were  interpolated,  and  oth- 
ers written  under  his  name,  in  order  to  forge  his 
sanction  to  sentiments  of  which,  possibly,  he  nev- 
er heard.  *  *  *  *  3.  Origen  had  many  enemies, 
who  probably  attributed  to  him  many  things 
which  he  didi.  not  believe,  in  order,  either  to  in- 
jure his  fame,  or  bring  his  character  under  cen- 
sure."— Fiicyc.  of  Rel.  Knoivl.,  Art.  Origenists. 

Having  said  thus  much  in  reference  to  the  tes- 
timony before  us,  it  would  be  possible  to  take  up 
the  w^ritings  of  this  distinguished  father,  and 
show  from  them  that  there  is  room  for  a  differ- 
ence of  opinion  as  to  whether  he  believed  that 
the  so-called  Christian  Sabbath  vv\is  indeed  to  be 
regarded  as  of  tv/enty-four  hours'  duration,  mere- 
ly, or  whether  it  covered  alike  all  days  of  the 
week,  and  the  whole  of  our  dispensation.  This, 
however,  would  be  a  tedious  and  unprofitable  ex- 
penditure of  time  and  labor.  We  leave  the  whole 
question,  therefore,  respecting  the  teaching  of 
the  works  of  Orio^en,  as  one  of  no  sio-nificance  in 
this  controversy ;  first,  because  if  we  know  any- 
thing about  what  he  did  believe,  he  was  wholly 
unreliable,  either  as  a  teacher  of  sound  doctrine, 
or  as  a  representative  of  the  better  men  of  his 
own  time ;  and,  secondly;  because  what  he  has 
written  has  been  so  corrupted,  that  we  have  no 
guarantee  that  it  truthfully  expresses  v/hat  he 
believed. 


270  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMKNDxMENT. 

As  we  presume  the  majorifc}^  of  our  readers 
are  not  particularly  interested  in  reference  to 
which  posture  was  assumed  in  prayer  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  by  the  early  church,  and  as  Pe- 
ter of  Alexandria  and  the  Council  of  Nice  are 
quoted  solely  in  reference  to  "  this  independent 
question,"  we  shall  not  discuss  the  note  in  which 
reference  is  made  to  them.  There  remains,  there- 
fore, only  the  case  of  Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage, 
to  occupy  us  longer.  What  this  author  says  Avas 
written  about  A.  D.  253.  It  will  be  observed,  that 
in  what  is  declared  by  him  and  the  Council,  the 
first  day  of  the  week  is  called  the  Lord's  day ; 
beyond  this,  his  testimony  is  of  no  value.  It  is 
neither  stated  that  the  title  was  applied  by  di- 
vine authority,  nor  is  it  affirmed  that  this  day 
had  superseded  in  Sabbatic  honor  the  ancient 
Sabbath  of  the  Lord. 

There  is,  however,  in  reference  to  circumcision 
as  something  which  prefigured  the  Lord's  day,  or 
eighth  day,  enough  of  mysticism  to  furnish  us 
with  a  clue  to  the  character  of  the  men  whose  in- 
tellectual perceptions  were  so  tine  that  they  could 
discover  in  an  institution  which  Avas  adminis- 
tered on  the  eighth  day  after  the  birth  of  the 
male  child,  on  whatever  day  of  the  week  that 
eighth  day  might  fall,  a  prefiguring  of  the  dis- 
tinction v/hich  was  to  be  bestowed  on  the  definite 
first  day  of  the  week,  which  had  in  it,  not  eight, 
but  only  seven,  days,  in  all.  Mr.  Mosheim,  in  al- 
luding to  a  }ieriod  in  close   proximity  to  that  in 


.SUNDAY    AND    TIIK    SALlliATIf. 


which  Cyprian  lived,  mentions  it  as  one  in  "  wliich 
the  greater  part  of  the  Christian  doctors  had  been 
engaged  in  adopting  those  vain  fictions  of  Platon- 
ic philosophy  and  popular  opinions,  which,  after 
the  time  of  Constantine,  were  confirmed,  en- 
larged, and  embellished  in  various  ways,"  and 
from  which  he  declares  "  arose  that  extravagant 
veneration  for  departed  saints,  and  those  absurd 
notions  of  a  certain  fire  destined  to  purify  sepa- 
rate souls,  that  then  prevailed,  and  of  which  the 
public  marks  were  everywhere  to  be  seen." — 
Eccles.  Hist.,  Fourth  Century,  part  ii.,  chap.  iii. 

It  is  now  time  to  take  a  retrospective  view  of 
the  territory  over  which  we  have  been  passing. 
Be  it  remembered  that  the  reader  was  lured 
from  the  contemplation  of  the  Scriptures,  with 
this  precious  promise,  that  outside  of  them  were 
to  be  found  the  most  convincing  proofs  that  the 
Lord's  day  was  and  had  been  the  proper  title  of 
the  first  day  of  the  week  since  the  resurrection 
of  Christ ;  but  what  have  we  seen  ?  Manifestly, 
not  that  v^diich  we  had  anticipated  : 

First,  we  have  discovered  that  Ignatius,  the  first 
witness  introduced,  does  not  mention  the  Lord's 
day  at  all,  but  simply  speaks  of  the  Lord's  life. 

Secondly,  that  the  epistle  of  Barnabas  was  a 
forgery,  made  up  of  the  most  absurd  and  ridic- 
ulous fancies,  and  written  by  an  unknown 
character  somewhere,  perhaps  in  the  second  or 
third  century,  though  purporting  to  be  the  work 
of  the  companion  of  Paul. 


278  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMEND.MENT. 

Thirdly,  that  it  is  becoming  more  and  more  a 
matter  of  doubt  whether  that  which  is  attribut- 
ed to  Justin  Martyr  was  ever  seen  by  him,  and 
that  he  not  only  does  not  call  the  Sunday  the 
Lord's  day,  but  also  inculcates  in  what  he  says, 
the  Romish  heresy  respecting  the  use  of  water 
in  sacrament,  &c.,  &c. 

Fourthly,  that  Dionysius,  bishop  of  Corinth, 
and  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis,  while  indeed  they 
do  speak  of  the  Lord's  day,  do  not  furnish  any 
clue  by  which  we  csai  determine  which  day  they 
regarded  as  such. 

Fifthly,  that  Pliny,  a  heathen  writer,  employs 
neither  the  term  Lord's  day  nor  Sabbath,  but 
simply  speaks  of  a  stated  day,  without  identifi- 
cation. 

Sixthly,  that  L'cniuus  is  not  })roperly  represent- 
ed as  speaking  of  the  Sunday  in  the  use  of  the 
title  Lord's  day,  since  that  expression,  in  both  the 
instances  alluded  to,  was  the  language  of  Euseb- 
ius,  who  lived  in  the  fourth  century,  and  not  of 
Irenseus,  who  lived  in  the  second. 

Seventhly,  that  Tertullian,  who  lived  at  the 
close  of  the  second  and  the  commencement  of 
the  third  century,  and  who  v/as  a  wild  fanatic  of 
the  Montanist  school,  utterly  unworthy  to  repre- 
sent the  sentiments  of  his  times,  is  the  first  wit- 
ness from  whom  the  gentleman  has  succeeded  in 
obtaining^  an  unequivocal  application  of  the 
term,  Lord's  day,  to  the  first  day  of  the  week  ; 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  -!  /  H 

also,  that  lie  had  connected  with  it,  prayers  for 
the  dead,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  &c.,  &c. 

Eighthly,  that  Origen  was  a  man  of  great 
learning ;  that  it  was  questionable  whether  he  be- 
lieved in  a  septenary  Sabbath,  or  in  one  tliat 
covered  the  whole  dispensation ;  and  that,  in  fact, 
it  is  admitted  by  his  friends  that  liis  works  have 
become  so  corrupt  as  to  be  utterly  untrustworthy 
in  the  matter  of  deciding  respecting  his  real 
opinions. 

Ninthly,  that  Cyprian  and  his  colleagues  ad- 
dressed us  from  a  point  of  time  too  far  removed 
from  the  period  of  the  alleged  change  of  Sabbaths, 
and  too  fully  within  that  of  the  great  apostasy, 
to  be  of  service  in  an  exegesis  of  the  Scriptures. 

Tenthly,  that  three  of  the  most  pointed  and  sat- 
isfactory of  the  testimonies  heretofore  employed 
by  first-day  writers,  are  nov/  abandoned  as  hav- 
ing been  the  result  of  mistake  in  translation,  or 
in  the  matter  of  attributing  them  to  the  proper 
persons.  Summing  up,  tliereforc,  in  a  word  we 
inquire  again,  What  has  been  gained  by  this  de- 
parture ?  We  believe  that  all  must  see  that  it 
has  been  an  entire  failure ;  for,  so  far  as  the  Sab- 
bath is  concerned,  we  think  the  reader  will  hesi- 
tate long  before  he  will  leave  the  Scriptures,  in 
the  matter  of  deciding  upon  its  obligation,  in 
order  to  build  the  structure  of  his  faith  from 
such  material  as  we  ha^ve  been  handling  over. 

Also,  as  to  the  question  of  what  day  John  re- 
ferred to  in  Rev.  1  :  10,  v/hen  he  said.  "I  wa.s  in 


280  COXSTITUTIONAL    AMKXD.MENT. 

the  Spirit  on  the  Lord's  day,"  he  will  deliberate 
very  much  before  he  will  decide  that  it  was  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  simply  because  an  untrust- 
worthy man,  admitted  to  have  been  heretical  on 
many  points,  called  it  such  200  years  after  the 
birth  of  Christ,  while  Jehovah  himself  has  given 
to  the  seventh  day  that  honor,  styling  it  the 
"  Sabbath  of  the  Lord,"  "  the  holy  of  the  Lord, 
honorable,"  &c.,  and  while  Christ  himself  has 
declared  in  so  many  words,  that  he  w\as  the  Lord 
of  the  Sabbath  day.     Mark  2  :  27,  28. 


STATESMAN'S    REPLY. 


^i»^  K.  T  I  C  Xj  E      3Sr  I  InT  E 


THEORIES  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBATH. 

With  the  facts  of  history  before  us  concerning 
sacred  time  for  nearly  three  centuries  after  the 
resurrection  of  Christ — facts  drawn  from  the  in- 
spired writers  of  the  New  Testament  and  their 
immediate  successors,  we  are  prepared  to  consider 
the  different  theories  of  the  Christian  Sabbath. 
These  theories  may  be  summed  up  in  three.  Of 
one  or  another  of  these,  all  the  remaining  theories 
are  simply  modifications. 

The  first  of  these  three  leading  tlieories  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "  The  Sabbath  was  a  Jewish  institution,  and 
expired  with  the  Jewish  dispensation.  The  Lord's 
day  is  not  in  any  proper  sense  a  Sabbath.  It 
has  an  origin,  a  reason,  and  an  obligation,  not 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SAUBATIT.  281 

drawn  from  the  fourth  commandment,  but  pe- 
culiarly its  own,  as  an  institution  belonging 
specially  to  the  New-Testament  dispensation. 

The  second  theory,  in  the  order  in  which  we 
notice  these  different  views,  maintains  that  the 
observance  of  the  Sabbath,  as  required  under  the 
Old-Testament  dispensation,  knows  no  change  in 
any  particular.  The  observance  of  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week  is  essential  to  the  proper  observ- 
ance of  the  Sabbath  under  the  gospel  dispensa- 
tion. The  observance  of  the  first  day  of  the 
week  is  without  divine  warrant — a  departure 
from  the  law  of  God  through  the  corruptions 
which  crept  into  the  church. 

The  third  theory  agrees  with  the  second  in 
maintaining  that  the  Sabbath  existed  from  the 
be^finnino-  and  that  it  has  never  been  abolished 
or  superseded.  It  disagrees  with  the  second  the- 
ory in  maintaining  that  the  essential  idea  of  the 
law  of  the  Sabbath  is  not  the  holiness  of  a  portion 
of  time,  but  the  consecration  of  a  specified  pro- 
portion of  time,  one  day  in  seven ;  that,  in  ac- 
cordance with  this,  a  change  of  day  was  admissi- 
ble ;  that  a  change  was  actually  made  by  divine 
warrant  from  the  resurrection  of  Christ;  and 
that  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  Lord's  day,  is 
the  true  Christian  Sabbath,  having  its  moral 
sanction  in  the  fourth  commandment. 

By  many  of  those  who  hold  the  first  of  these 
theories,  the  Lord's  day  is  made  a  purely  ecclesi- 
astical institution,  without  any  other  warrant  for 
its  observance  than  the  action  of  the  church,  by 
whose  authority  and  in  whose  wisdom,  the  day 
is  set  apart  for  divine  service.  By  others  who 
accept  the  same  general  theory,  apostolic  author- 
ity in  the  early  church  is  admitted  to  afford  a 


282  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

divine  Avarmnt  for  the  observance  of  the  day. 
In  a  complete  treatise  on  the  Lord's  day,  a  care- 
ful discussion  of  this  theory  would  be  required. 
Its  v/ant  of  any  sufficient  foundation  could  be 
satisfactorily  shown  by  a  presentation  of  the  fol- 
lowing points  :  (1.)  The  declaration  of  the  Lord 
of  the  Sabbath  is  explicit — "  The  Sabbath  v/as 
made  for  man/'  It  was  not  made  for  any  portion 
of  the  human  family,  but  for  the  race  of  mankind. 
(2.)  Thus,  from  the  design  of  its  Lord,  and  the 
very  nature  of  the  institution,  the  Sabbath  can- 
not be  limited  to  any  locality  or  dispensation. 
(8.)  Accordingly,  it  was  given  to  man  at  his  cre- 
ation. (Gen.  3  :  3.)  (4.)  For  the  same  reason, 
the  law  of  the  Sabbath  has  its  proper  place,  not 
among  ceremonial,  local,  or  positive  enactments, 
but  among  the  immutable  moral  precepts  of  the 
decalogue.  (5.)  This  law  is,  therefore,  of  univer- 
sal and  perpetual  obliga>tion  upon  our  race.  These 
})oints  would  give  room  for  many  articles ;  but, 
inasmuch  as  on  all  of  them  there  is  entire  agree- 
ment between  our  seventh-day  Sabbatarian 
friends  and  ourselves,  we  pass  to  a  consideration 
of  the  second  theory,  which  they  accept  as  correct. 
To  make  good  their  case,  the  advocates  of  the 
second  theory  must  show  that  the  seventh  day 
continued  to  be  the  Sabbath  observed  by  the 
church  after  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  just  as 
before ;  and  that,  in  the  observance  of  the  first 
day,  a  great  departure  took  place  from  the  orig- 
inal practice  of  the  Christian  church.  They 
must  not  make  hare  statements,  but  they  must 
furnish  proof  Instead  of  appealing  to  the  letter 
of  the  law,  and  insisting  that  fact  must  conform 
to  their  interpretation  of  it,  they  must  accept  the 
facts  of  history,  and  put  their  interprctaticms  to 


SUxNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  283 

the  tei-jt.  It  is  more  reasonable  to  conclude  that 
an  interpretation  of  law  is  wrong,  than  to  reject 
the  attested  facts  of  history,  when  the  interpre- 
tation and  the  facts  do  not  harmonize. 

Let  us  briefly  sum  up  the  facts  already  fully 
brought  to  view.  Christ  himself,  after  his  res- 
urrection, passed  by  the  seventh  day,  and  repeat- 
edly put  special  honor  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week.  This  same  day  was  honored  by  the  Pen- 
tecostal gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Christian  con- 
gregations met  for  regular  weekly  service,  not  on 
the  seventh  day,  but  on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
The  inspired  apostle  Paul  pointedly  condemned 
the  Judaizing  teachers  who  insisted  on  the  ob- 
servance by  Christians  of  the  seventh-day  Sab- 
bath. The  early  writers,  companions  of  the 
apostles,  and  others  of  the  succeeding  genera- 
tions, bear  the  clearest  and  most  explicit  testi- 
mony^ to  the  same  facts — the  non-observance  of 
the  seventh-day  Sabbath,  and  the  stated  meet- 
ings of  Christians  for  divine  service  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  the  Lord's  day.  Now,  if  their 
theory  is  correct,  how  will  the  seventh-day  Sab- 
batarians explain  the  fact  that  Christ  himself, 
the  Holy  Spirit,  inspired  apostles,  and  Christian 
congregations  all  through  the  early  church,  ig- 
nored the  seventh  day  and  honored  the  first  ?  A 
general  and  vague  statement  to  the  effect  that  an 
unwarranted  change  was  made  from  the  original 
practice  of  the  Christian  church  will  not  do  here. 
Was  not  the  practice  of  the  apostles  and  fii'st 
organized  congregations  of  Christians  the  orig- 
inal practice  of  the  Christian  church  ?  That 
practice  was,  as  we  have  seen,  to  observe  the 
first  day  of  the  week.  We  repeat  what  we  have 
ah'ead}^  ]n-ovcd  at  length,  viz.,  that  there  is  not 


281-  COXSTITITTIOXAL    AMRXD^IENT. 

an  instance  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  observance 
of  the  seventh  clay  by  any  Christian  church,  nor 
of  any  regard  to  that  clay,  after  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion, by  apostles  or  their  fellow-laborers,  except 
as  they  availed  themselves,  in  their  missionary 
work,  of  the  meetings  of  Jewish  assemblies  in 
Jewish  places  of  worship.  "An  unwarranted 
change !"  Let  those  who  take  such  language 
upon  their  lips  consider  that  their  charge  lies  at 
the  door  of  Christ  and  his  Spirit,  and  the  inspired 
apostles. 

But  now,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  let  us 
leave  all  the  testimony  of  the  inspired  writers  of 
the  New  Testament  to  the  first-day  Sabbath  out  of 
view.  Ao'ain  we  have  the  vaofue  charoje  of  un- 
warranted  change.  Perhaps  the  most  definite 
form  of  this  charge  is  that  whicli  makes  the 
change  the  work  of  the  little  horn  in  Daniel's 
prophecy,  chapter  seven.  But  will  tlie  expound- 
er of  Daniel  be  a  little  more  explicit,  and  tell  us 
who  the  historical  personage  is,  and  give  us  the 
dates  and  names  of  history  ?  Does  the  little 
horn  represent  Antiochus  Epiphanes  ?  If  so, 
then,  of  course,  his  change  of  the  law  of  the  Sab- 
bath must  have  been  before  the  Christian  era. 
Will  our  expositor  give  us  some  facts  just  here  ? 
If  the  little  horn  means  the  papacy,  then,  accord- 
ing to  the  prophecy  itself,  it  did  not  arise  until 
the  Roman  Empire,  represented  by  the  fourth 
beast,  was  broken  into  ten  fragments,  represented 
by  the  ten  horns.  The  little  horn  sprang  up 
after  these,  and  its  change  of  the  law  of  the  Sab- 
bath must  date  after  the  fall  of  the  old  empire  of 
Home.  But  for  centuries  before  this  event,  we 
have  the  testimony  of  numerous  writers  that  the 
Christian  churches  ever}^ where  observed,  not  tlio 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SAUKATII.  285 

seventh,  but  the  first,  day  of  the  week,  the  Lord's 
day.  Again  we  ask  for  facts,  not  mere  state- 
ments and  theories. 

Leaving  this  vague  attempt  to  connect  the  as- 
sumed unwarranted  change  with  Daniel's  proph- 
ecy, we  come  to  what  is,  if  possible,  still  more 
vague  and  indefinite.  A  change,  it  is  asserted, 
was  made  by  some  particula^r  officer  or  council  of 
the  church,  as  it  became  corrupt  and  began  to 
depart  from  the  ]jractice  of  the  original  church  of 
Christ.  AVho  was  this  officer  ?  or  where  did  this 
council  meet  ?  But  we  will  not  make  unreason- 
able demands  for  historical  testimony.  Let  us 
grant  that  such  an  officer  or  such  a  council  there 
was  at  some  time  or  other.  The  question  then 
arises.  When  did  tlie  change  take  place  ?  In  the 
days  of  Cyprian,  A.  D.  250  ?  The  answer  is  clear. 
The  change  must  have  been  made  before  his  day. 
Origen  and  TertuUian,  fifty  years  earlier,  knew 
only  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  Lord's  day,  as 
the  Christian  Sabbath.  Was  the  change  then 
made  in  their  day  ?  We  might  assume  that  it 
was,  only  for  the  clear  testimony  of  Irengeus  and 
Justin  Martyr,  carrying  us  back  another  half  cent- 
ury, and  the  equally  explicit  testimony  of  still 
earlier  writers,  carrying  us  back  to  the  apostles 
themselves. 

Notwithstanding  all  this  dearth  of  historical 
testimony  as  to  the  existence  of  the  supposed  rul- 
er or  council,  let  it  be  further  granted  that  by 
some  such  corrupting  authority,  at  some  time  a 
decree  changing  the  day  for  Sabbath  observance 
was  issued.  How  did  the  supposed  legislators 
establish  their  decree  ?  How  did  they  make  it 
effectual  over  all  the  different  parts  of  the  church  ? 
Must  we  suppose  that  a  change  like  this  was  ef- 


l^'^(>  CONSTITl'TIOXAL    AM  KNOMENT. 

fected  in  the  churcl),  and  not  a  scrap  of  a  rec- 
ord left  concerning  it  ?  The  attempt  made  by 
the  church  to  estabhsh  a  common  day  for  the  an- 
niversary of  Christ's  resurrection  orave  rise  to  lonof 
and  bitter  controversy,  and  led  to  division.  And 
yet,  as  Prof.  F.  D.  Maurice  has  v^ell  said,  "  It  is 
supposed  that  this  far  more  important  change,  af- 
fecting all  the  daily  relations  and  circumstances 
of  life,  took  effect  by  the  decree  of  some  apostle 
or  some  ecclesiastical  synod,  of  which  no  record, 
no  legend,  even,  is  preserved !  Or,  perhaps,  a 
half-heathen,  more  than  half-heathen,  statute  of 
Constantine,*  about  the  Dies  Soils  accomplished 
what  the  legislators  of  the  church  could  not  ac- 
complish— succeeded  not  only  in  securing  its 
adoption  by  Athanasians,  Arians,  Semi-Arians, 
whose  controversies  Constantine  could  never  heal, 
but  in  securing  the  allegiance  of  all  the  barba- 
rous tribes  which  accepted  the  gospel  under  such 
various  conditions  in  later  times.  Can  any  sup- 
})ositions  make  greater  demands  on  our  credulity 
than  these  ? "  A  Procrustean  bed  indeed  must 
be  that  interpretation  of  the  law  of  the  Sabbath 
which,  to  conform  them  to  itself,  must  thus  deal 
with  the  facts  of  history  and  the  probabilities  of 
historical  evidence. 

Just  here   is  the  difficulty  in  the    theory   of 
Seventh-day  Sabbatarians.     They  have  someliow 

"^'The  attemi:)t  to  attribute  the  change  of  day  to  Constantine's 
decree  is  hardly  worth  noticing.  It  is  enough  to  remember  that 
it  was  issued  in  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century.  No  one 
who  knows  anything  of  the  writings  of  Tertullian  and  Origen,  dat- 
ing back  more  than  a  century  before  Constantine,  to  say  nothing 
of  still  earlier  writers,  will  venture  to  ascribe  the  change  to 
the  Roman  Emperor's  decree.  Besides,  the  language  of  the  very 
decree  referred  to  recognizes  the  honorable  character  of  the  tirst 
day  of  the  week.  It  recognizes  thatdav  as  already  "venerable." 
—  TheChrhfian. 


SrND.VV    AXI)    THE    SA1;11ATT[.  287 

got  lodged  in  their  mind  the  idea  that  the  last  one 
of  the  seven  dp.ys  of  the  week  is  the  sacred  day, 
the  observance  of  v/hich  is  absolutely  essential  to 
the  proper  keeping  of  the  Sabbath.  AYhat  has 
already  been  proved  from  history,  inspired  and 
uninspired,  is  sufficient  to  show  that  this  theoiy 
is  unworthy  of  men  who,  like  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  would  grasp  the  true  significance  of  the 
law  of  the  Sabbath.  But  as  so  much  stress  is 
laid  upon  the  question  of  time,  we  shall  devote 
our  next  article  to  this  crucial  and  very  practical 
point. 


"  THEORIES   OF   THE    CHRISTIAN    SABBATH. 

The  thoughtful  reader  need  not  be  told  that 
the  article  which  he  has  just  read,  entitled, 
"  Theories  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,''  has  ad- 
vanced the  discussion  of  the  question  before  us 
in  no  material  respect.  The  space  devoted  so 
generously  to  the  consideration  of  theories,  in 
regard  to  the  unsoundness  of  which  there  is  no 
difference  of  opinion  between  the  gentleman  and 
myself,  is  thrown  away,  so  far  as  the  present 
argument  is  concerned.  While  this  is  true,  how- 
ever, if  it  serves  no  other  purpose,  it  has  at  least 
made  it  clear  that,  if  the  gentleman  fails  to  make 
out  his  case  in  the  end,  it  will  not  ba  because  he 
has  not  had  ample  room  for  the  presentation  and 
elaboration  of  Diets  and  argurp.ents,  since  one  who 


288  CONSTITUTIONAL    AJIENDMENT. 

was  crippled  in  his  effort  by  a  lack  of  space 
would  hardly  be  willing  to  devote  so  much  time 
and  attention  to  subjects  foreign  to  the  pres- 
ent issue. 

That  which  is  said  with  reference  to  these 
theories  might  also  be  repeated  in  reference  to 
the  statement  and  restatement  of  points  which  it 
is  claimed  have  been  proved.  Of  course,  it  is 
the  prerogative  of  any  writer  to  conduct  his  own 
argument  in  his  own  way.  All  that  we  would 
call  attention  to  is  the  fact  that  the  line  of  policy 
]:)ursued,  in  these  things,  is  of  a  nature  to  satisfy 
even  the  most  casual  observer,  that  one  who  felt 
that  he  had  resources  upon  which  to  draw,  with- 
out limit,  would  not  compel  us  to  pass  again 
and  again  over  the  same,  ground.  There  is,  how- 
ever, an  apology  which  might  properly  be  of- 
fered in  the  case  of  the  gentleman,  for  calling 
our  attention  to  these  trivial  points  so  repeated- 
ly, which  is  found  in  the  fact  that  his  articles 
were  written  before  our  rejoinders  were  in  print. 
We  believe  that,  were  not  this  the  case,  and  had 
he  perused  what  has  been  said  in  repb^  to  them, 
we  should  be  spared  the  monotony  or  answering 
them  again.  However,  lest  we  should  seem  to 
avoid  them,  it  will  only  be  necessary  that  we  say 
enough,  bearing  upon  each  point,  to  revive,  in 
the  mind  of  one  who  has  followed  us  thus  far, 
the  fuller  consideration  given  to  all  of  them  here- 
tofore. 

To  the  statement  that  Sabbatarians,  in  order 


SUNDAY   AND    THE    SABBATH.  289 

to  ni?Jve  good  their  case,  must  make  their  views 
harmonize  with  the  fp^cts  of  history,  it  is  enough 
to  say  that,  if  it  is  meant  by  this,  the  fa.cts  of 
sacred  history,  as  cont.ained  in  the  Bible,  this  we 
have  already  done ;  for  before  it  can  be  urged 
that  the  opposite  is  true,  as  we  have  elsewhere 
seen,  it  must  be  shown  that  there  is  some  trans- 
action found  in  the  sacred  record  which  is  in  con- 
flict witli  our  interpretation  of  the  law.  This 
has  not  been  done ;  for  not  only  has  it  been  made 
to  appear  that  the  Sabbath  law  is  explicit  in  its 
requirement  of  the  observance  of  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week,  but  also  that  there  is  not  a 
single  case  of  its  violation,  by  a  good  man,  to  be 
found  in  the  inspired  pages. 

Nor  is  this  all ;  we  have  gone  beyond  this,  and 
proved,  by  the  record,  that  the  opposite  was  true 
of  the  Sunday,  since  upon  it  Christ  and  two  of 
his  disciples,  on  the  day  of  his  resurrection,  as 
well  as  Paul  and  Luke  and  others  at  a  subse- 
quent period,  did  perform  upon  it  labor,  which 
the  gentleman  himself  has  not  attempted,  and 
will  not  undertake,  to  harmonize  with  any  just 
conception  of  intelligent  Sabbath-keeping.  So 
far  as  it  regards  the  absence  of  any  mention  of 
meetings  of  Christians  on  the  Sabbath,  it  is  suf- 
ficient to  say,  as  we  have  already  done,  that,  as 
in  the  history  given,  the  account  relates  largely 
to  missionary  trips,  where  there  was  no  church 
as  yet  developed,  and,  consequently,  no  possibil- 

Con    Am.  19  B 


290  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

ity  of  separate  meetings,  such  a  record  would  be 
out  of  the  question ;  also,  that  the  ai^gument  is 
only  a  negative  one,  and  really  can  have  no  force, 
until  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  God's  plan  is 
first  to  command,  and  then  show,  in  every  in- 
stance what  the  commandment  means,  by  prac- 
tical illustrations  furnished  from  the  history  of 
his  people ;  a  doctrine  which  is  not  only  unsound 
and  untrue,  but  absurd  in  the  extreme. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  gentleman  means  to 
be  understood  as  insisting  that  the  history  of  the 
church  since  the  close  of  the  canon  of  inspiration 
must  be  made  to  teach  the  faith  which  we  hold 
as  one  which  has  always  been  entertained  by  the 
church,  and  therefore  sound,  we  repudiate,  in  the 
name  of  Protestantism,  this  most  pernicious  view, 
and  in  all  matters  of  practical  duty,  such  as  Sab- 
bath-keeping, we  decide  according  to  the  written 
word.  To  the  first  source  (church  history),  the 
gentleman  has  appealed,  and  if  every  candid  man 
and  woman  who  has  witnessed  his  efibrt  has  not 
been  disgusted  with  the  source  to  which  he  has 
applied,  then  we  know  of  notliing  which  would 
be  calculated  to  create  in  him  this  condition  of 
mind. 

With  the  summary,  in  which  it  is  claimed  that 
Christ,  and  the  apostles,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
the  early  church,  did  repeatedly  honor  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  we  will  not  weary  the  reader 
here.  We  have  disproved  every  one  of  these 
points,  and  we  trust  to  the  intelligence  of  those 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  291 

whom  we  are  addressing,  in  the  confident  belief 
that  w^iat  has  been  said,  in  the  absence  of  even 
an  attempt  at  refutation,  needs  not  to  be  repro- 
duced here. 

We  had  barely  mentioned,  in  our  original  arti- 
cles, that  Seventh-day  Adventists  held  to  the 
opinion  that  the  pope  of  R-ome  had  been  instru- 
mental in  brino^inor  about  the  changre  of  the  Sab- 
bath.  No  effort  was  made  to  develop  the  argument 
on  that  point,  since  we  did  not  dare  to  presume 
that  room  would  be  granted  for  the  perfecting  of 
the  work ;  in  fact,  what  was  said  was  uttered 
rather  with  a  view  to  calling  the  attention  of 
the  curious  to  our  published  works  upon  that 
subject,  than  for  any  other  purpose.  Now,  how- 
ever, this  point  is  made  to  assume  a  prominence 
which  does  not  really  belong  to  it,  in  an  argu- 
ment so  largely  doctrinal  rather  than  historic. 

With  this,  nevertheless,  we  have  no  fault  to 
find.  Nothing  is  more  satisfactory  than  the 
awakening  of  a  spirit  of  investigation  on  all 
branches  of  this  great  subject ;  at  the  same  time, 
we  submit  that  tlie  attitude  of  the  gentleman 
must  be  very  unsatisfactory  to  himself,  since  he 
will  readily  perceive  that  to  an  opponent,  chafing 
under  a  denial  of  the  privilege  of  answering  him 
in  the  columns  of  his  own  paper,  this  whole  af- 
fair wears  the  aspect  of  an  empty  bravado.  "  Tell 
us,"  says  the  editor,  and  he  repeats  his  invitation 
again  and  again,  "  Whom  did  this  little  horn  rep- 
resent ?    Was  it  Antiochus  ?  or  the  pope  ?  If  the 


29*2  coNSTiTurioxAL  amendment. 

hhtter,  then  how,  and  when,  p.nd  where,  did  he 
bring  about  the  transition  ?" 

But  we  reply,  Whom  do  you  mean,  sir,  by  the 
term,  "us"?  Truly,  you  would  not  require  us 
to  come  to  Philadelphia  to  enlighten  you  person- 
ally upon  that  point.  Certainly,  you  are  not 
particularly  anxious  that  vfe  should  v/rite  a 
series  of  articles  for  the  benefit  of  the  readers  of 
the  Revieiv,  on  a  matter  with  which  they  are  as 
familiar  as  they  are  with  the  history  of  their  own 
country ;  but  if,  indeed,  you  had  in  your  mind 
the  readers  of  the  Statesman,  then  it  may  be 
inquired  again,  How  has  it  been  possible  for  us 
to  reach  them,  under  the  circumstances  ?  since, 
throwing  your  forces  behind  the  wall  of  your 
editorial  prerogative,  and  closing  against  us  the 
gate  of  possibility,  you  have  shut  us  out  from  all 
access  to  them.  Gladly  would  we  have  e^vailed 
ourselves  of  the  opportunity  of  doing  that  which 
we  have  been  denied  the  privilege  of  attempting 
before  the  men,  many  of  whom,  we  believe, 
would  have  been  glad  to  follow  this  matter 
to  the  end  ;  but  as  this  cannot  be  done,  a  brief 
reply  will  be  made  here. 

The  first  inquiry,  relating,  as  it  does,  to  the 
point  whether  Antiochus  Epiphanes  or  the  pope, 
Vv^as  meant  by  the  "  little  horn,"  in  the  seventh 
of  Daniel,  need  not  consum^e  time.  It  has  been 
urged  by  some  that  the  "  little  horn,"  of  D?a\.  8  : 
9,  a^pplied  to  the  former  character.  We  believe 
the  papists  still  insist  upon  tliis ;  but  the  gentle- 


SUNDAY    AXD   THE    SABBATH.  293 

man,  upon  reflection — if  in  what  ho  has  said  ho 
has  confounded  the  two — will  not  seriously  argue 
against  the  almost  universal  admission  of  Protest- 
ant \Yriter3,  that  the  power  brought  to  view  in 
the  seventh  chapter  of  Daniel's  prophecy,  is  that 
of  the  papacy.  In  fact,  reasoning  as  he  does 
himself,  TQOst  satisfactorily,  that  it  could  not  arise 
until  after  the  appearance  of  the  original  ten, 
wdiich  represented  the  final  breaking  up  of  the 
Eoman  Empire  into  ten  parts,  he  more  than  in- 
timates his  personal  conviction  that  it  could  not 
represent  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  who  reigned  one 
hundred  and  seventy-five  years  before  Christ, 
since  the  Roman  Empire  was  not  partitioned 
among  the  barbarians  who  invaded  it,  until  A.  D. 
483,  more  than  six  hundred  years  after  the  death 
of  the  Syrian  king. 

The  following,  from  a  standard  authority,  will 
serve  to  show  an  almost  universal  aoTeement  on 

o 

this  subject ;  and  with  its  presentation  we  pass 
to  the  investigation  of  questions  more  difficult, 
and  more  worthy  of  our  reflection.  "Among 
Protestant  writers,  this  {'  the  little  horn,'  of  Dan. 
7:8)  is  considered  to  be  the  popedom." — A.  Clarke, 
Com.  in  loco. 

"  To  none  can  this  ('  He  shall  speak  great 
words  againt  the  Most  High  ')  apply  so  well,  and 
so  fully,  as  to  the  popes  of  Rome." — Idem,  v.  25. 

The  real  point  of  debate,  a.s  intimated  above, 
is  the  question  Vvdiether  the  Roman  Catholic 
church  has  been  instrumental  in  bringing  about 


294  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

the  change  of  the  Sabbath.  The  gentleman  errs 
in  asserting  that  ^ve  have  anywhere  stated  that 
such  a  change  was  brought  about  by  any  partic- 
ular officer  or  council.  This  we  have  never  urged, 
nor  does  it  accord  with  the  view  held  by  us.  The 
"  little  horn  "  represented,  not  one,  merely,  but  a 
whole  line  of  priest-kings,  who  were  to  extend 
from  the  time  of  their  rise,  to  the  Judgment,  and 
the  setting  up  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Of  this  line 
of  rulers,  it  is  stated — not  that  they  should  really 
succeed  in  bringing  about  an  actual  change  in 
the  requirements  of  the  law  of  God — but  that 
they  should  "  thinh  "  to  accomplish  this  end.  It 
is  also  said  that,  for  a  time,  times,  and  dividing 
of  time  (1260  years),  the  saints  of  God  and  the 
law  of  God  should  be  delivered  into  their  hands. 
Not,  indeed,  that  God  would  forsake  either  his 
people  or  his  law,  utterly,  but  that,  for  the  period 
in  question,  they  should  be  permitted  to  pursue 
a  course  destructive  to  the  one,  and  antagonistic 
to  the  other.  In  other  words,  that  they  should 
put  to  death  the  saints,  and  presume  to  alter  the 
commandments  of  God. 

These  specifications  are  simply  introduced  by 
way  of  identification.  It  is  not  said  that  the 
power  indicated  should  spring  into  life  suddenly, 
and  without  a  previous  stage  of  development ; 
nor  is  it  declared  that  the  principles  v/hich  were 
to  characterize  it  in  its  mature  life  should  be 
wholly  peculiar  to  itself.  Other  powers,  such  as 
pagan  Rome,  might  have  persecuted  the  people 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABEATII.  295 

of  God  before  the  rise  of  the  papacy,  as  they  im- 
questionably  did.  Other  men  might  have  begun 
the  work  of  tampering  with  the  law  of  God,  long 
before  the  days  of  the  hierarchy,  and  might  have 
prepared  to  its  hands  the  materials  necessary  to 
the  accomplishment  of  the  final  blasphemous 
work  of  the  man  of  sin. 

In  the  days  of  Paul,  "  the  mystery  of  iniquity 
began  to  work,"  and  from  that  point,  its  history 
was  one  of  gradual  development.  Some  of  the 
most  destructive  heresies  afterward  incorporated 
into  the  faith  of  papists,  it  is  well  understood, 
were  fully  fledged,  and  quite  generally  accepted, 
before  the  installation  of  the  first  pope.  So,  too, 
concerning  the  first-day  Sabbath.  There  can  be 
little  doubt  that  before  the  bishop  of  Rome  be- 
came the  "  Corrector  of  Heretics,"  in  A.  D.  538,  or 
entered  the  chair  of  St.  Peter,  the  Sunday  had 
come  to  be  regarded,  by  many,  as  the  rival,  if  not 
the  superior,  of  the  ancient  Sabbath.  Just  how 
extensively  the  sentiment  prevailed,  however,  it 
is  hard  to  determine  from  church  history,  because, 
as  has  been  shown  in  a  previous  article,  the 
sources  of  our  information  have  been  so  coiTupt- 
ed  by  unprincipled  Romanists,  that  it  is  difficult 
to  arrive  at  the  facts  in  the  case. 

One  thing  is  certain ;  there  was  a  mighty  strug- 
gle on  this  question,  the  gentleman  to  the  con- 
trary, notwithstanding,  which  has  left  the  marks 
of  its  existence  in  the  records  of  the  past.  Clear 
down  to  the  rise  of  Roman  Catholicism,  there 


296  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

were  men  who  were  strenuous  for  the  observance 
of  the  seventh  clay,  and  rejecters  of  its  rival. 
Doubtless  the  Sunday,  by  slov/  degrees,  had 
worked  itself  into  almost  universal  acceptance  as 
a  festival  resting  upon  human,  and  not  divine, 
authority;  but  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  still 
continued  in  the  faith  of  many,  especially  in  the 
East,  as  a  day  to  be  sacredly  devoted  to  the  Vv^or- 
ship  of  God.  On  this  point,  Neander,  the  learned 
church  historian,  has  given  distinct  and  unequiv- 
ocal utterance : — 

"  The  festival  of  Sunda}^,  like  all  otlier  festi- 
vals, was  only  a  human  ordinance,  and  it  was  far 
from  the  intention  of  the  apostles  to  establish  a 
divine  command  in  this  respect ;  far  from  them 
and  from  the  early  apostolic  church  to  transfer 
the  laws  of  the  Sabbath  to  Sunday.  Perhaps  at 
the  end  of  the  second  century,  a  false  application 
of  this  kind  had  begun  to  take  place ;  for  men 
appear,  by  that  time,  to  have  considered  laboring 
on  Sunday  as  a  sin." — Rose's  Translation  of  Me- 
ander, p.  186.* 

Giesler  also  remarks  as  follows :  "  While  the 
Christians  of  Palestine,  who  kept  the  whole  Jew- 
ish law,  celebrated,  of  course,  all  the  Jewish  fes- 
tivals, the  heathen  converts  observed  only  the 
Sabbath,  and  in  remembrance  of  the  closing 
scenes  of  our  Saviour's  life,  the  passover,  though 


*For  the  extracts. given  in  this  connection,  the  reader  is  re- 
ferred to  "Sabbath  and  Sunday,"  by  A.  II.  Lewis,  and  to  "The 
History  of  the  Sabbath,"  by  J.  N.  Andrews. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  297 


^ibu, 


without  tlio  Jcv/isli  superstitions.  Besides  tlics^ 
the  Sunday  as  the  day  of  our  Saviour's  resurrec- 
tion, was  devoted  to  religious  worship." — Church 
Hist.,  Apostolic  Age  to  A.  D.  70. 

Lyman  Coleman,  in  his  "  Ancient  Christianity 
Exemplified,"  testifies  as  follows:  "The  observ- 
ance of  the  Lord's  day  as  the  first  day  of  the  week 
was  at  first  introduced  as  a  separate  institution. 
Both  this  and  the  Jewish  Sabbath  v^^ere  kept  for 
some  time  ;  finally,  the  latter  passed  wholly  over 
into  the  former,  wliich  now  took  the  place  of  the 
ancient  Sabbath  of  tlie  Israelites.  But  their  Sab- 
bath, the  last  day  of  the  w^eck,  was  strictly  kept 
in  connection  v»ith  that  of  tlie  first  day  for  a  long- 
time after  the  overthrov/  of  the  temple  and  its 
v/orship.  Dov/n  even  to  the  fifth  century,  the 
observance  of  the  Jewish  Sptbbath  was  continued 
in  the  Christian  church,  but  v/ith  aj'igor  and  so- 
lemnity gradually  diminishing,  until  it  was  wholly 
discontinued.  *  *  *  Both  w^ere  observed  in 
the  Christian  church  down  to  the  fifth  century, 
with  this  difference,  that  in  the  eastern  church, 
both  days  v/ere  regarded  as  joyful  occasions ;  but 
in  the  western,  the  Jev/ish  Sabbath  v/as  kept  as 
a  fast."     Chap.  26,  sect.  2. 

Wm..  Twisse,  whose  antique  style  comports 
with  that  of  the  period  in  which  he  wrote,  most 
pointedly  declares  the  same  fact  in  a  work  enti- 
tled, ''The  Morality  of  the  Fourth  Command- 
ment :"  "  Yet  for  some  hundred  years  in  the  prim- 
itive church,  not  the  Lord's  day  only,  but  the 


298  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

seventh  day  also,  was  religiously  observed,  not 
by  Ebion  and  Cerintlms  onl}^,  but  by  pious  Chris- 
tians also,  as  Baronius  writeth  and  Gomaius  con- 
fesseth,  and  Rivut  also."     Page  9,  London,  1641. 

Morer,  in  speaking  of  the  early  Christians,  re- 
marks of  them  as  follows  :  "  The  primitive  Chris- 
tians had  a  great  veneration  for  the  Sabbath,  and 
spent  the  day  in  devotion  and  sermons,  and  it  is 
not  to  be  doubted  but  they  derived  the  practice 
from  the  apostles  themselves." — Mover's  Lord's 
Day,  p.  189. 

Edward  Brerewood,  professor  in  Gresham  Col- 
lege, London,  writes:  "The  ancient  Sabbath  did 
remain,  and  was  observed  by  the  Christians  of  the 
east  church  above  three  hundred  years  after  our 
Saviour's  death,  and  besides  that,  no  other  day, 
for  more  hundred  years  than  I  spoke  of  before, 
was  known  in  the  church  by  the  name  of  the 
Sabbath."     Page  77,  ed.  1631. 

Prof  Stuart,  in  speaking  of  the  period  between 
A.  D.  321  and  the  council  of  Laodicea,  A.  D.  364, 
furnishes  the  following  interesting  statement, 
which  discloses  the  historic  fact  concerning  the 
ebb  and  flow  of  discussion  on  this  subject  in  the 
early  church  :  "  The  practice  of  it  [the  keeping  of 
the  Sabbath],  was  continued  by  Christians  who 
were  jealous  for  the  honor  of  the  Mosaic  law, 
and  finally  became,  as  we  have  seen,  predominant 
throughout  Christendom.  It  was  supposed  at 
length  that  the  fourth  commandment  did  require 
the  observance  of  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  [not 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SACBATIT.  299 

merely  a  seventh  part  of  time],  and  reasoning  as 
Christians  of  the  present  day  are  wont  to  do,  viz., 
that  all  which  belongs  to  the  ten  commandments 
was  immutable  and  perpetual,  the  churches  in 
general  came  gradually  to  rega^rd  the  seventh-day 
Sabbath  as  altogether  sacred." — Appendix  to 
Gurney's  Hist,  of  Sahhath,  pp.  115,  116. 

Concerning  the  same  council,  Prynne  has  made 
a  similar  historic  record  ;  "  The  seventh-day  Sab- 
bath was  solemnized  by  Christ,  the  apostles,  and 
primitive  Christians,  till  the  Laodicean  Council 
did,  in  a  manner,  quite  abolish  the  observance 
of  it.  *  *  *  The  Council  of  Laodicea,  A.  D.  864, 
first  settled  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  day, 
and  prohibited .  keeping  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath, 
under  an  anathema." — Dissertation  on  the  Lord's 
Sahhath,  pp.  33,  44,  ed.  1633. 

In  alluding  to  the  differences  in  practice  be- 
tween the  eastern  and  the  western  churches,  Ne- 
ander  distinctly  sets  forth  the  resolute  animosity 
of  the  latter  to  the  ancient  Sabbath  of  the  Lord, 
and  the  manner  in  which  they  sought  to  bring  it 
into  disrepute,  while  elevating  the  Sunday  into 
favor.  He  says  :  "  In  the  western  churches,  par- 
ticularly the  Roman,  where  opposition  to  Juda- 
ism was  the  prevailing  tendency,  this  very  oppo- 
sition produced  the  custom  of  celebrating  the 
Saturday  as  a  fast  day.  This  difference  of  cus- 
toms w^ould,  of  course,  be  striking,  where  mem- 
bers of  the  Oriental  church  spent  their  Sabbath 
day  in  the  western  church." — Hist.  Chris.  Rel- 


300  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

and  Church,  First  Three  Centuries.  Rose's  trans., 
p.  186. 

Peter  Heylyn  also  marks  the  peculiar  favor 
sliown  to  the  first  day  of  the  week  in  the  wes- 
tern  cliurcli ;  and  while  he  declares  at  one  time 
that  it  was  near  "  nine  hundred  years  from  the 
Saviour's  "birth  before  restraint  of  husbandry  on 
this  day  [Sunda}^]  had  been  first  thought  of  in 
the  east/'  he  elsewhere  records  the  fact  that  in 
the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries  general  unanimity 
respecting  the  exai taction  to  divine  honor  was 
reached.  He  writes  :  "  The  faithful,  being  united 
more  than  ever  before,  became  more  uniform  in 
matters  of  devotion,  a,nd  in  that  uniformity  did 
agree  together  to  give  the  Lord's  day  all  the  hon- 
ors of  a  holy  festival,  yet  this  was  not  done  all  at 
once,  but  by  degrees,  the  fifth  and  sixth  cent- 
uries being  fully  spent  before  it  came  unto  that 
hight  which  has  since  continued.  The  emperors 
and  the  prelates  in  these  times  had  the  same  af- 
fections, both  earnest  to  advance  this  day  above 
all  others ;  and  to  the  edicts  of  the  one,  and  to 
the  ecclesiastical  constitutions  of  the  others,  it 
stands  indebted  for  many  of  those  privileges  and 
exemptions  which  it  still  enjoy eth." — Hist.  Sah., 
part  2,  chap.  4,  sect.  1. 

Thus  it  has  been  proved,  by  citations  from  men 
who  have  possessed  the  resources,  as  well  as  the 
disposition,  to  make  themselves  acquainted  with 
the  history  of  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian 
church,  fii-st,  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  was 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABEATII.  301 

looked  upon  for  a  long  timo  as  a  merely  human 
institution;  secondly,  that  the  Edenic  Sabbath 
was  for  centuries  after  the  crucifixion  of  Christ 
quite  generally  celebrated ;  thirdly,  that  prejudice 
aocainst  it  seems  to  have  been  strong^est  and  to 
have  originated  earliest  at  Rome,  where,  in  order 
to  bring  it  into  odium,  it  was  made  a  day  of  foist- 
ing, while  the  Sunday  was  treated  as  a  festival ; 
fourthly,  that  after  a  struggle,  which  extended 
through  hundreds  of  years,  the  ancient  Sabbath 
was  finally  quite  generally  repudiated,  and  the 
Sunday,  through  the  united  efforts  of  prelates, 
councils,  and  emperors,  v/as  enthroned  and  en- 
forced upon  all. 

Into  the  details  of  this  long  and  varying  con- 
flict, in  which  victory  seems  first  to  have  favored 
the  one  side  and  then  the  other,  we  are  restricted 
by  the  limits  of  our  communication  from  enter- 
ing. The  intelligent  reader  can  readily  fill  in  the 
outlines  which  have  been  given,  and  will  not  be 
slow  to  perceive  that  the  contest,  from  the  very 
nature  of  things,  must  have  been  one  of  intense 
interest  and  heated  debate.  If  he  would  satisfy 
himself  most  fully  that  the  gentleman  is  mis- 
taken in  saying  that  it  has  left  no  traces,  we  re- 
fer him  for  a  more  full  discussion  to  the  authori- 
ties quoted. 

Changing  now  the  point  of  view,  we  v/ill  come 
to  the  present  time.  We  return  once  more  to  the 
charge  that  the  church  of  Rome,  availing  itself 
of  the  condition  of  things  which  preceded  its  rise, 


302  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT, 

has  consummated  the  terrible  work  which  was 
begun  with  the  great  apostasy,  long  before  the 
papacy  proper  was  fully  developed.  In  prose- 
cuting the  labor  thus  entered  upon,  the  reader  is 
invited  to  pause  a  moment  and  decide  upon 
certain  principles  which  ought  to  govern  in  the 
decision  of  the  question.  He  will  remember 
that  if  he  has  been  educated  in  the  observance  of 
Sunday,  he  will  be  in  danger  of  requiring  more 
testimony  than  could  reasonably  be  demanded, 
since  his  education,  and  personal  interest,  and 
standing,  would  all  incline  him  to  a  conservatism 
which  needs  to  be  guarded  with  a  jealous  care, 
lest  it  should  result  in  a  bias  which  would  termin- 
ate in  the  rejection  of  sufficient  light. 

All  that  we  ask  him  to  do  is  to  treat  this  sub- 
ject the  same  as  he  would  any  other  matter  of 
fact.  To  illustrate  :  If  the  body  of  a  murdered 
man  were  discovered  upon  the  street,  and  if  there 
should  be  found  in  the  community  one  whose 
character  w^as  bad  in  every  respect,  concerning 
whom  those  who  knew  him  best  had  given  warn- 
ing ;  if  on  the  garments  of  this  suspicious  person- 
age blood  stains  were  found ;  if,  in  the  meantime, 
a  careful  examination  of  the  wounds  should  show 
that  they  had  been  inflicted  by  a  weapon  peculiar 
to  the  notorious  individual ;  and  if,  in  addition  to 
the  foregoing,  he  should  step  forward  and  frankly 
confess  that  he  had  done  the  deed,  no  court  in 
the  world  would  hesitate  to  inflict  the  penalty 
of  tlie  law,  because  of  any  doubt  regarding  the 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  303 

giiilfc  of  tlie  oifending  party.  Now  applying  the 
same  principles  to  the  case  in  hand,  if  every  one 
can  be  shown  to  hold  good  in  every  particular, 
then  consistency  demands  that  they  should  pro- 
duce a  conviction  equally  clear  and  strong  with 
that  in  the  mind  of  the  court,  in  determininoj  in 
the  case  of  the  homicide  upon  the  infliction  of 
punishment. 

But  is  it  true  that  the  charge  against  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  church  can  be  made  out  as  conclu- 
sively as  that  against  the  individual  mentioned 
above  ?  Let  us  see.  The  first  point  there 
brought  forv/ard  was  the  unquestionable  fact  that 
the  man  had  been  murdered.  This  was  the  start- 
ing point  of  the  whole  affair.  That  which  an- 
swers to  it  in  the  case  before  us  is  the  fact  that 
the  change  of  the  Sabbath  has  been  made  out 
beyond  reasonable  doubt;  for  God  commanded 
the  observance  of  the  seventh  day,  while,  some- 
how, Christendom  is  generally  observing  the  first, 
though  utterly  incapable  of  furnishing  Scripture 
warrant  for  the  change. 

The  second  point  was  that  respecting  the  bad 
reputation  of  a  certain  character  in  the  com- 
munity— its  parallel  in  the  persons  of  the  popes 
is  found  in  the  fact  that,  as  we  have  seen,  their 
rise  and  history  were  symbolized  centuries  before 
their  appearance  under  the  type  of  the  "  little 
horn"  of  the  seventh  of  Daniel,  by  one  who 
never  errs  in  his  analysis  of  character,  and  who 
declared  of  the  "man  of  sin"  that  he   should 


304  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

"  think  to  change  times  and  laws/'  and  that  they 
should  be  given  into  his  hands  for  "  a  time  and 
times  and  the  dividing  of  time,"  thus  proving 
that  this  blasphemous  power  who  was  to  open 
his  mouth  in  blasphemy  against  God  is  capable 
of  attempting  the  transfer  of  God's  holy  Sabbath 
to  a  day  different  from  that  po'inted  out  in  the 
commandment. 

The  third  point,  v/hich  related  to  blood  stains 
upon  the  garments  of  the  suspected  person,  finds 
its  counterpart  in  the  teachings  of  Romanism, 
most  clearly.  Y/e  learn,  in  the  vmtings  of  Moses, 
that  the  blood  is  the  life  of  the  individual.  This, 
however,  is  not  more  true  than  it  is  that  the 
fourth  commandment  is  the  life  of  the  Sabbatic 
institution.  If  you  mar  that  commandment,  you 
mar  the  Sabbath  in  the  same  ratio.  If  you  de- 
stroy that  commandment,  you  destroy  the  Sab- 
bath. But  the  assumed  ability  to  alter  this  pre- 
cept as  well  as  others  of  the  decalogue  is  one  of 
the  very  crimes  of  which  Rome  has  been  guilty, 
by  v/hich  she  has  blotched  all  over  in  the  most 
loathsome  manner  the  garments  of  a  once  spot- 
less Christianity,  and  a  profoundly  reverent  faith. 
That  this  is  so  will  become  manifest  when  we 
present  a  copy  of  the  decalogue  as  it  has  been 
mutilated  by  the  Romish  church  in  the  exercise 
of  a  pretended  divine  right  to  accomplish  such  a 
work.  For  this  purpose  we  append  the  ten  com- 
mandments as  they  stand  in  Butler's  catechism.* 

''•The  commivndmcnts  as  given  above  arc  su])posccl  to  be  re- 


SUNDAY   AND    THE    SABBATH.  305 

"  1.  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God.  Thou  shalt  not  have 
strange  gods  before  me,  «fec.  2.  Thou  shalt  not 
take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain.  3. 
Remember  that  thou  keep  holy  the  Sabbath  day. 
4.  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother.  5.  Thou 
shalt  not  kill.  6.  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adul- 
tery. 7.  Thou  shalt  not  steal.  8.  Thou  shalt 
not  bear  false  witness  against  thy  neighbor.  9. 
Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  wife.  10. 
Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  goods." 

Here  it  will  be  seen  that  the  second  command- 
ment is  dropped  out  altogether,  and  that  the 
tenth  is  divided ;  a  portion  of  it  retaining  its 
ancient  number,  and  the  remaining  portion  of  it 
being  numbered  as  the  ninth  commandment, 
thereby  making  the  complement  of  the  original 
ten,  which  would  have  been  reduced  to  nine  by 
ignoring  the  one  against  image  worshi]:>.  It  vv^ill 
also  be  perceived  that  with  the  exception  of  the 
words,  '"'  Remember  that  thou  keep  holy  the  Sab- 
batli  day,"  the  fourth  commandment  is  left  out  en- 
tirely. True,  it  may  be  that  in  the  Douay  Bible 
the  original  commandments  are  allowed  to  re- 
main intact,  but  wo  shall  see  hereafter  that  the 
above  arrangement  is  not  accidental,  and  that  the 
power  to  make  these  changes  is  unhesitatingly 
claimed. 

The  fourth  point  was  that  concerning  the  form 

peated  by  the  individual  Romanist  in  response  to  the  injunction, 
'"Say  the  ten  commandments  of  God." 

Con.  Am.  20  B 


306  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

and  nature  of  the  Abound,  whereby  it  was  discov- 
ered that  it  was  made  wdth  a  weapon  precisely 
such  as  one  possessed  by  the  suspected  party. 
The  correspondence  in  this  particular  will  be 
found  in  the  boundary  of  the  new  Sabbath ;  in 
its  beginning  and  ending,  occurring  as  they  do 
at  twelve  o'clock,  midnight,  are  the  unmista,kable 
marks  of  the  hand  of  one  who  most  assuredly 
did  not  live  at  Jerusalem,  and  who  left  upon 
the  creature  of  his  own  power  the  badge  of  its 
origin  at  Eome. 

The  Jews,  as  v/e  have  seen  heretofore,  by  the 
agreement  of  commentators  and  scholars  general-' 
ly,  as  well  as  by  the  testimony  of  the  Bible, 
com-menced  and  ended  their  da,ys  w^ith  the  setting 
of  the  sun.  At  Rome,  on  the  other  lipaid,  as  v/ell 
as  in  other  parts  of  the  world,  the  day  began  as 
we  now  begin  the  Sunday — at  midnight.  In 
this,  it  is  made  apparent  that  some  one  has  been 
tampering  with  a  day  which  it  is  claimed  w^as 
hallowed  by  Christ  eighteen  hundred  years  ago  ; 
since,  if  it  had  originated  at  that  time  and  in 
that  place,  it  v.^ould  have  conformed  in  its  begin- 
ning and  ending  to  the  weekly  Sabbath,  the  da.y 
of  Pentecost,  and  the  other  days  in  the  Jewish 
calendar.  The  presumption  concerning  v/hom 
this  person  is,  is  already  made  out.  The  certain- 
ty respecting  it  will  be  established  under  the 
next  heading. 

The  fifth  point  cited  above  v/as  the  confession 
of  the   culprit.     Under  ordinary    circumstances. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE   SACBATII.  307 

this  alone  would  have  made  a  conviction  inevi- 
table. Answerino;  to  it  in  tlie  fullest  deo'ree  are 
the  oft-repeated  declarations  of  Romanists,  that 
they  have  changed  tlie  Sabbath  from  the  seventh 
to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and  that  they  Imd 
the  ability  and  the  right  thus  to  do.  Respecting 
these  assumptions,  we  might  introduce  quota- 
tions almost  without  number,  but  we  must  con- 
tent ourselves  with  a  few  brief  but  pointed  ones.* 

Ques.  "  What  are  the  days  which  the  cliurch 
commands  to  be  kept  holy  V 

'' Ans.  1.  The  Sundays,  or  our  Lord's  day, 
which  we  observe  by  apostolical  tradition  in- 
stead of  the  Sabbath.  2.  The  feasts  of  our 
Lord's  nativity,  or  Christmas  day ;  his  circumcis- 
ion, or  New  Year's  day ;  the  Epiphany,  or  twelfth 
clay ;  Easter  day,  or  the  day  of  our  Lord's  resur- 
rection, w^ith  the  Monday  followinsf,"  &c. 

"  Ques.  What  vras  the  reason  why  the  v»'eekly 
Sabbath  was  changed  from  the  Saturda^y  to  the 
Sunday  ?" 

'' Ans.  Because  our  Lord  fully  accomplished 
the  work  of  our  redemption  by  rising  from  the 
dead  on  Sunday  and  by  sending  down  the  Holy 
Ghost  on  Sunday;  as  therefore  the  work  of  our 
redemption  was  a  greater  work  than  that  of  our 
creation,  the  primitive  cJairch  thought  the  day 
in  which  this  work  vv^as  completely  finished  was 


*  Tii8  foUov.'ing  citations  will  be  found  in  a  smail  tract  published 
at  the  '*  Ji'eview  &ndILrald"  Otlice,  entitled,  "  Who  Changed  the 
Sabbath  V" 


308  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

more  worthy  lier  religious  observation  than  that 
in  whicli  God  rested  from  creation,  and  should 
be  properly  called  the  Lord's  day." 

"  Q'ltes.  But  has  the  church  power  to  make 
any  alterations  in  the  commandments  of  God  ?" 

"  Ans.  The  commandments  of  God,  as  far  as 
they  contain  his  eternal  law,  are  unalterable  and 
indispensable,  but  as  to  Avhatever  was  only 
ceremonial  they  cease  to  oblige,  since  the  Mosaic 
law  was  abrogated  by  Christ's  death;  hence,  as  far 
as  the  commandment  obliges  us  to  set  aside  some 
part  of  our  time  for  the  worship  and  service  of  our 
Creator,  it  is  an  unalterable  and  unchangeable 
precept  of  the  eternal  lav/  in  v/hich  the  church 
cannot  dispense.  But,  forasmuch  as  it  prescribes 
tlie  seventh  day  in  particular  for  this  purpose, 
it  is  no  more  than  a  ceremonial  precept  of  the 
old  law  v/liicli  oblio^eth  not  Christians,  and  there- 
fore,  instead  of  the  seventh  day  and  other  festi- 
vals appointed  by  the  old  law,  the  church  has 
prescribed  the  Sundays  and  holidays  to  be  set 
apart  for  God's  worship,  and  these  v/e  are  now 
obliged  to  keep  in  consequence  of  God's  com- 
mandment, instead  of  the  ancient  Sabbath." 

"  Ques.  What  warrant  have  you  for  keeping 
the  Sunday  preferable  to  the  ancient  Sabbath, 
whicli  was  the  Saturday  ?" 

"Ans.  We  have  for  it  the  authority  of  the 
Catholic  church  and  apostolic  tradition." 

"  Ones.  Does  the  Scripture  anywhere  com- 
mand the  Sunday  to  be  kept  for  the  Sabbath  ?" 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  309 

"Alls.  The  Scripture  commands  ns  to  hear 
the  church  (Matt.  18  :  17,  Luke  10  :  16),  and  to 
hold  fast  the  traditions  of  the  apostles.  2  Thess. 
2:15.  But  the  Scriptures  do  not  in  particular 
mention  this  change  of  the  Sabbath.  John 
speaks  of  the  Lord's  day  (Rev.  1  :  10) ;  but  he 
does  not  tell  us  v/hat  day  of  the  week  this  was, 
much  less  does  he  tell  us  that  this  day  was  to 
take  the  place  of  the  Sabbath  ordained  in  the 
commandment  •****-  so  that  truly  the 
best  authority  we  have  for  this,  is  the  testimony 
and  ordinance  of  the  church.  And,  therefore, 
those  who  pretend  to  be  so  religious  of  the 
Sunday,  whilst  they  take  no  notice  of  the  festi- 
vals ordained  by  the  same  church  authority, 
show  that  they  act  by  humor,  and  not  by  reason 
and  religion,  since  Sundays  and  holy  days  all 
stand  upon  the  same  foundation,  viz.,  the  ordi- 
nance of  the  church." — Cath.  Christian  Instruct- 
ei,  pp.  209-211. 

"  Ques.  Have  you  any  other  way  of  proving 
that  the  church  has  poAver  to  institute  festivals 
of  precept  ?" 

"  Ans.  Had  she  not  such  power,  she  could  not 
have  done  that  in  which  all  modern  religionists 
agree  with  her — she  could  not  have  substituted 
the  observance  of  Sunday,  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  for  the  observance  of  Saturday,  the  sev- 
enth day,  a  change  for  Vvdiich  there  is  no  script- 
ure authority." — Doctrinal  Catechlsin. 

"  Ques.    If  keeping  the    Sunday  be  a  church 


310  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

precept,  why  is  it  numbered  in  the  decalogue, 
Y/liicli  are  the  commandments  of  God  and  the 
law  of  nature  ?" 

"  Ans.  Because  the  substance,  or  chief  part 
of  it,  namely,  that  the  dajr  be  set  apart  for  the 
service  of  God,  is  of  divine  right  and  of  the  lav/ 
of  nature  ;  though  the  determining  this  particu- 
lar day,  Sunday,  rather  than  Saturday,  be  a 
church  ordinance  and  precept." — Abridgment  of 
Chris.  Doc,  pp.  57,  59. 

Thus  much  for  the  connection  of  the  papp.cy 
with  the  change  of  the  Sabbath.  The  reader, 
repudiating  the  claim  for  apostolical  tradition, 
which  is  of  no  value  v/ith  Protestants,  and  re- 
jecting as  fallacious  the  assumed  antiquity  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  church,  will  discover  that  there 
still  remains  the  bold  assumption  of  the  ability 
on  the  part  of  that  church  to  change  the  Sabbath, 
and  also  of  the  historic  fact  that  it  has  done  so. 
Mr.  Gilfillan,  v/hile,  of  course,  from  his  stand- 
point rejecting  the  notion  that  the  pope  has 
either  in  reality  changed,  or  even  possessed  the 
ability  to  change,  the  divinely  appointed  day  of 
rest,  frankly  acknowledges  that  he  arrogates  to 
himself  the  povv^er  so  to  do,  in  the  followinc: 
language : — 

"  Rome,  professing  to  retain,  has  yet  corrupted 
every  doctrine,  institution,  and  law  of  Jesus  Glirist, 
recognizing  for  example,  the  mediator  between  God 
and  man,  but  associating  with  him  many  other  in- 
tercessors ;  avowing  adherence  to  the  Scripture, 


SUNDAY   AND    THE    SABBATH.  311 

but  the  Scripture  as  supplemented  and  made  void 
by  the  wi4 tings  and  traditions  of  men ;  and,  in 
short,  -without  discarding  the  Lord's  day,  adding  a 
number  of  encumbering  holidays,  giving  them  in 
many  instances  an  honor  equal  and  even  superior 
to  God's  own  day,  and  claiming  for  the  '  Yicar  of 
Christ'  lordship  even  of  the  Sabbath." — The 
Sabbath,  p.  457. 

Into  the  details  respecting  the  fasts ;  the  de- 
crees of  councils ;  the  bulls  of  popes  :  the  myths 
concerning  the  calamities  vdiich  have  befallen 
those  laboring  on  the  Sunday ;  the  forgery  of  an 
epistle  in  its  interests,  which  it  was  claimed  fell 
from  Heaven ;  and  the  astounding  miracles  with 
which  the  hierarchy  has  accomplished  the  pro- 
dio^ious  task  of  makino:  the  transfer,  we  a.re  not 
permitted  to  enter  here,  nor  will  it  be  required 
that  we  should  do  so.  Any  person  acquainted 
with  the  arts  usually  employed  at  Rome  will 
readily  perceive  the  methods  which  she  has  called 
to  her  assistance.  All  tlip.t  a  reasonable  man 
could  possibly  ask  is  found  in  the  transition 
from  one  day  to  another,  in  the  fact  that  the 
law  of  God  was  to  be  tampered  with  by  a  per- 
secuting power  which  was  to  continue  its  op- 
pressions of  the  saints  of  God  for  twelve  hundred 
and  sixty  years,  and  in  the  further  consideration 
that  no  persecuting  power  except  that  of  Rome 
has  ever  continued  for  that  lenojth  of  time. 

Concerning  the  decree  of  Constantine,  the 
only  place  which  v/e  assign  to  it  in  the  contro- 


313  COXSTITUTIOXAL    AMENDMENT. 

versy  between  the  friends  of  the  Lord's  Sabbath 
and  its  rival,  is  that  which  it  holds  because  of  its 
having  made  the  transition  easy.  The  first  day 
of  the  week  being  the  one  generally  observed  by 
the  heathen  and  by  this  decree  enforced  by  stat- 
ute, had  in  its  favor  the  practice  and  sympathy 
of  the  masses  of  men.  This  law,  though  passed 
by  a  heathen,  and  in  the  interest  of  the  heathen 
religion,  v/as,  as  would  naturally  have  been  the 
case,  of  great  service  to  those  who  subsequently 
favored  the  change  of  da.y,  since  it  gave  to  their 
effort  not  only  the  color,  but  also  the  material 
advantage,  of  legality ;  by  it,  men,  under  certain 
circumstances,  v/ere  compelled  to  celebrate  the 
day  of  the  sun  even  though  they  had  previously 
regarded  that  of  the  Lord.  This,  of  course,  was 
burdensome,  and  worked  greatly  to  the  advan- 
tage of  the  heathen  festivah 

One  of  tv/o  views  must  be  taken  of  the  statute 
of  Constantino :  If  it  wqyq  Christian,  then  it 
proves  that  Sunday  observance,  at  the  time  of  its 
passage,  was  exceedingly  lax,  since  by  its  terms 
only  men  in  the  cities  and  towns  were  prohibited 
from  laboring  upon  it,  while  those  in  the  country 
were  by  it  allowed  and  encouraged  to  carry  on 
the  vocations  of  the  farm.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  were  heathen  in  its  origin,  then  the  suggestion 
that  it  recognizes  the  venerableness  of  the  day 
of  the  sun,  even  at  so  early  a  period  as  that  of 
its  promulgation,  is  entirely  v/ithout  force,  since 
it  thereby  becomes  manifest  that  it  received  this 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SABBATH.  313 

dignifying  appellation,  not  because  it  had  long 
been  venerated  by  the  disciples  of  our  Lord,  but 
because  from  time  immemorial  it  had  been 
honored  by  the  heathen — a  doubtful  compli- 
ment to  the  Christian  Sabbath. 


STATESMAN'S   REPLY 


.A.K.TICIjS     teit 


THE  PRINCIPLE  AS  TO  TIME  IN  SABBATH 
OBSERVANCE. 

Our  readers  v/ill  recollect  that  the  chief  differ- 
ence between  the  second  and  the  third  theories 
of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  as  v/e  stated  them  in 
our  last  issue,  is  in  reference  to  the  question  of 
time.  Seventh-day  Sabbatarians,  on  the  one 
hand,  maintain  that  the  last  one  of  the  seven 
days  of  the  week  is  tlie  sacred  day,  and  that  the 
observance  of  this  very  day  is  absolutely  essen- 
tial to  the  proper  observance  of  the  Sabbath  of  the 
Lord,  and  the  keeping  of  the  fourth  command- 
ment. On  the  other  hand,  we  set  forth  what  v/e 
believe  to  be  the  true  theory  of  the  Christian 
Sabbath,  according  to  which  the  essential  idea  of 
the  law  of  the  Sabbath  is  the  consecration  to 
God  of  an  appointed  proportion  of  time — one 
day  in  seven,  and  not  the  essential  holiness  of 
any  particular  day. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  interpretation 
of  the  fourth  commandment  which  insists  on  the 


314  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENBSIENT. 

essential  holiness  of  the  last  day  of  the  week 
would  convict  the  risen  Lord,  and  his  inspired 
apostles,  and  the  whole  church  of  Christ,  even  in 
its  purest  days,  of  the  violation  of  that  precept 
of  the  divine  law.  But  let  us  now  examine  a 
fev/  practical  points  in  connection  with  this 
second  theory. 

1.  If  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  is  to  be  rig- 
idly adhered  to,  as  the  law  of  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, it  must  be  the  seventh  from  the 
creation,  in  regular  weekly  succession.  Will  any 
seventh-day  Sabbatarian  venture  to  affirm  that, 
through  all  the  changes  of  our  race,  through  all 
the  breaks  of  history,  through  the  bondage  in 
Egypt,  and  the  repeated  captivities  of  God's  an- 
cient people,  to  say  nothing  of  the  miracles  in 
connection  with  Joshua's  victory,  and  Hezekiah's 
sickness,  the  unbroken  succession  of  the  v,^eekly 
divisions  of  time  has  been  maintained  ?  Docs 
the  last  day  of  our  week  answer,  in  an  exact 
numbering  of  days,  to  the  seventh  day  on  which 
God  rested  after  completing  the  work  of  creation  ? 
The  interpretation  which  we  are  now  considering 
demands  this  conformity  to  the  fourth  command- 
ment in  its  letter.  He  v,^ould  be  a  bold  man  in- 
deed, v/ho  v/ould  affirm  that  his  seventli  day  in 
this  nineteenth  century  is  the  exact  day  Vvdiich 
his  own  view  of  the  lav/  of  the  Sabbath  would 
require  him  to  keep  holy.  Our  present  ffi^st  day 
may  correspond  to  the  original  seventh  day. 
Who  knows  ? 

2.  But  admit  that  these  essentially  holy  tv/en- 
ty-four  hours,  at  the  close  of  each  week,  may  be 
marked  without  doubt,  how  can  all  Christians  in 
different  parts  of  the  world  keep  them  ?  How 
can  men  in  different  longitudes  and  latitudes  so 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  315 

mark  oft  the  week  as  to  have  it  end  with  this 
intrinsically  holy  portion  of  time  ?  The  differ- 
ence in  local  time  in  different  parts  of  the  earth 
is  a  fact  familiar  to  every  school-boy.  The  cir- 
cumference of  the  earth,  for  the  convenience  of 
calculation,  is  divided  into  three  hundred  and 
sixty  degrees.  As  the  sun  appea^rs  to  make  a 
circuit  round  the  earth  every  time  the  earth  ro- 
tates on  its  axis,  that  is,  every  tvv^enty-four  hours, 
the  apparent  motion  of  the  sun  from  east  to  west 
will  be  fifteen  degrees  each  hour.  Let  it  be  noon 
of  the  seventh  day  at  any  given  point  in  our 
land,  and  it  will  be  sunset  ninety  degrees  east, 
and  sunrise  ninety  degrees  west.  At  what  point 
of  the  earth's  surface  shall  men  claim  the  right 
to  have  the  seventh  or  holy  da.y  begin  v^^ith 
their  sunset  or  their  midnight,  and  demand  that 
all  others  east  and  west  shall  measure  their  holy 
day  from  so  many  hours  before  or  after  their 
own  midnight  or  sunset,  as  their  portion  may 
require  '^ 


Or,  again,  in  extreme  northern  and  southern 
latitudes,  where  perpetual  day  and  constant 
night  alternate  with  tlie  annual  revolution  of  the 
earth,  hov/  shall  the  seventh  day  be  marked  ? 
How  shall  this  essentially  holy  day  of  twenty- 
four  hours  be  known  ?  As  God,  in  his  infinite 
wisdom,  has  seen  fit  to  make  our  earth,  and  or- 
dain the  Ihws  of  its  diurnal  revolution  on  its 
axis,  and  its  annual  orbit  round  the  sun,  it  is 
simply  impossible  for  the  inhabitants  of  the 
world  to  keep  holy  the  same  identical  period  of 
time.  The  interpretation  of  the  law  of  the  Sab- 
bath at  vv^hich  v\^e  are  looking  is  in  conflict,  there- 
fore, v/ith  the  laws  of  the  solar  system. 

S.  Our  seventh-day  friend,  perhaps,  retreats  to 


316  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

his  last  refuge.  There  is  no  portion  of  a-hsokite 
time  essentially  holy.  That  wa.s  never  meant. 
Very  -well,  then,  what  is  meant  ?  Why,  that 
each  one  in  his  own  longitude  or  latitude  should 
observe  the  seventh  day  as  it  is  measured  by  his 
own  local  time.  We  apprehend  that,  in  some 
latitudes,  the  seventh  day,  measured  by  local  time, 
running  through  some  thousands  of  liours,  v/ould 
be  a  v/eariness  to  the  strictest  even  of  seventh- 
day  Sabbatarians.  But  we  will  leave  these  ex- 
treme cases.  They  must  keep  holy  the  appointed 
proportion — one-seventh  of  their  time.  That 
must  be  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  to  them.  But 
in  the  belt  of  the  earth  nearer  the  equator,  local 
time,  measured  by  the  natural  division  of  days, 
must  be  followed. 

Now,  let  it  be  said,  we  have  no  desire  to  treat 
a  serious  subject  lightly.  But  our  friends  insist 
on  an  interpretation  of  the  fourth  commandment 
which  can  hardly  be  treated  seriously.  AVe  can 
scarcely  blame  Dr.  Geo.  Junkin  for  employing 
this  shaft  of  ridicule.  He  says,  substantially, 
suppose  all  our  seventh-day  Sabbatarians  (and 
their  number  is  not  an  insuperable  objection  to 
the  experiment),  having  labored  six  days,  accord- 
ing to  the  commandment,  come  to  the  night  of 
Friday.  By  an  excusable  artifice,  sponges,  sat- 
urated with  a  powerful  anaesthetic  agent,  are  held 
to  their  noses,  and  they  are  laid  up,  in  perfect 
unconsciousness,  for  a  whole  day  beyond  the  close 
of  their  usual  time  of  sleep.  They  awake,  sup- 
posing it  to  be  the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  as 
to  them,  as  conscious  intelligent  beings,  and  sub- 
jects of  law,  it  certainly  would  be  to  all  intents 
and  purposes.  But  in  fact,  by  the  actual  meas- 
urement of  time,  it  is  the  first  day  of  the  week. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  317 

Might  tliere  not  be  in  this  way  a  practical  solu- 
tion of  the  whole  difficulty  ? 

But  the  actual  risinof  and  the  settinof  of  tlie 

CD  O 

sun  may  be  insisted  on  whether  our  seventh-day 
advocates  are  conscious  or  not.  Suppose,  then, 
that  one  of  them  takes  the  now  rather  popular 
trip  of  a  tour  round  the  world.  Going  west  at 
the  rate  of,  say  thirty  degrees  a  Aveek,  starting 
from  New  York,  he  would  lengthen  each  of  his 
days  from  sunrise  to  sunrise — supposing  the  sun 
to  rise  at  six  o'clock,  local  time,  all  along  the  belt 
of  his  course — a  little  over  seventeen  minutes; 
and  thus,  keeping  his  own  count  of  time,  and  ob- 
serving every  seventh  solar  day,  on  his  return  to 
New  York  at  the  end  of  twelve  weeks,  his  sev- 
enth-day Sabbath  would  really  be  the  first  day 
of  the  week.  Though  he  might  not  be  mentally 
converted  to  the  first-day  theory  of  the  Christian 
Sabbath,  he  would  at  least  be  physically  con- 
verted, and  would  either  be  compelled  to  accept 
the  change,  or  make  a  week  of  six  solar  days  to 
harmonize  in  Sabbath  observance  with  his  sev- 
enth-day brethren  at  home,  or  take  to  his  jour- 
neying again,  and  complete  the  circuit  of  the 
earth  in  the  opposite  direction,  in  order  to  main- 
tain unbroken  the  succession  of  weeks  of  seven 
days  each,  and  have  his  Sabbath  fall  on  the  one 
and  only  day  which  will  suit  his  interpretation  of 
the  fourth  commandment. 

If,  instead  of  going  by  the  v/est,  our  traveler 
should  go  by  the  ea.st,  journeying  at  the  same 
rate  of  thirty  degrees  each  week,  he  would  di- 
minish the  length  of  each  of  his  days  a  little 
over  seventeen  minutes,  and  on  ai-riving  once 
more  at  New  York,  at  the  end  of  tv/elve  even 
weeks  by  tlie  time  of  that  city,  but  twelve  weeks 


318  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

and  one  day  b^^  liis  own  time,  his  seventh-day 
Sabbath  would  fail  on  the  sixth  day  of  the  week, 
and  we  v/ould  have  a  new  order  of  Sabbatarians. 
The  rea^son  of  the  diversity  is  obvious.  The 
trip  around  the  v/orld,  according  to  the  supposed 
rate  of  travel,  would  occupy  just  twelve  weeks, 
or  eighty-four  days  of  twenty-four  hours  each, 
measured  by  local  time  at  New  York.  The  total 
number  of  hours,  reckoning  each  day  twenty- 
four  even  hours,  would  be  2,016.  The  traveler, 
proceeding  westv/ard  at  the  rate  of  thirty  degrees 
a  week,  would  add  to  each  day's  length  just  sev- 
enteen and  one-seventh  minutes — making  each 
day  from  sunrise  to  sunrise,  reckoning  this  always 
at  six  o'clock,  local  time,  twenty-four  hours,  sev- 
enteen and  one-seventeenth  minutes  long.  He 
would,  therefore,  in  the  whole  number  of  hours 
of  his  trip,  2,016,  see  the  sun  rise  only  eighty-three 
instead  of  eighty-four  times.  Going  east,  he 
would  shorten  each  day's  length,  reducing  it 
from  sunrise  to  sunrise,  to  twenty-three  hours 
and  forty-two  and  six-seventh  minutes.  In  this 
case,  the  whole  number  of  hours,  2,016,  would 
divide  up  into  eighty-five  solar  days.  To  one 
remaining  at  New  York,  there  would  be  eighty- 
four  solar  days;  to  the  one  going  west  around  the 
world,  the  same  absolute  time  would  be  summed 
up  in  eighty- three  solar  days ;  and  to  the  one  go- 
ing east,  it  would  extend  itself  to  eighty-five  solar 
days.  Thus  at  the  close  of  every  trip  round  the 
world,  the  Christian  traveler  or  sailor  must  re- 
adjust the  reckoning  of  his  days,  in  order  to  ob- 
serve the  Lord's  day  with  his  brethren  at  home. 
Vf  hen  our  Constitution  shall  have  been  amended, 
and  a  true  Christian  regard  shall  be  shown  to  all 
citizens,  if  our  seventh-day  friends  feel  grievously 


SUNDAY    AND   THE   SABBATn.  319 

oppressed  by  the  Sabbath  laws,  which  will  then 
be  no  dead  letter,  yvq  shall  do  our  utmost  to  have 
the  national  government  provide  a  number  of 
comfortable  vessels,  and  give  our  friends  a  gratu- 
itous trip  round  the  v^'-orld.  V/e  shall  take  care 
that  the  officers  are  instructed  not  to  sail  by  the 
east;  for  our  seventh-day  Sabbatarians  would 
then  go  a^way  only  to  come  hom.e  and  be  sixth- 
day  Sabbatarians.  Due  care  will  be  taken  to 
have  them  proceed  in  the  light  direction,  and  to 
induce  them  on  their  return  to  stay  at  home,  and 
government's  oppression-  of  them  by  Sabbath 
laws  will  then  forevermore  have  ceased. 

In  all  seriousness,  w^e  ask.  How  can  a  thought- 
ful man,  in  view  of  the  fact  of  the  earth's  revo- 
lution round  the  sun,  and  its  efiect  on  the  meas- 
urement of  time,  hold  to  the  second  theory  of  the 
Christian  Sabbath  ?  VVe  have  a  matter  of  fact  to 
record  just  here.  In  1790,  nine  mutineers  from 
the  English  vessel,  the  Bounty,  along  v/ith  six 
men  and  twelve  women  from  Tahiti,  landed  on 
what  is  known  as  Pitcairn's  island  in  the  Pacific 
Ocean.  John  Adams,  one  of  the  mutineers,  after 
the  violent  death  of  the  other  men,  Vv^as  convertedi 
by  reading  a  copy  of  the  Bible,  a.nd  became  a 
true  Christian.  Keeping  his  own  count  of  the 
days,  he  observed  the  weekly  Sabbath,  v/ith  the 
community  which  was  growing  up,  and  which 
he  wa,s  at  great  pains  to  instruct  in  the  Christian 
religion.  Some  time  after,  an  English  vessel 
visited  the  islands,  keeping  their  count  of  the 
days.  The  officers  and  crew  of  this  vessel  landed 
at  the  island  on  Saturday,  but,  to  their  astonish- 
ment, found  a  Christian  community  keeping  the 
Christian  Sabbath.  The  original  settlers  and  the 
visitors  had  orone  to  the  island  in  different  direc- 


320  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

tions.  Did  tlie  sailors,  ^Yho  kept  one  day,  not 
observe  the  Sabbath  ?  Or  did  the  islanders,  who 
kept  another  day,  violate  the  fourth  precept  of 
the  decalogue  ? 

Two  colonies  of  seventh-day  advocates  might 
leave  the  same  port,  one  going  east  and  the  other 
west,  and  might  locate  on  islands  on  the  same 
parallel  of  longitude,  but  on  different  parallels  of 
latitude.  Each,  keeping  its  own  record  of  time, 
v/ould  be  found,  on  settling  in  their  permanent 
home,  to  be  observing  a  different  day  as  the 
weekly  Sabbath.  V/ould  either  colony  admit 
that  it  vfas  in  the  wrong  ?  If  they  were  to  live 
apart,  each  might  properly  observe  its  own  day  ; 
if  together,  would  it  matter  which  day  might  be 
observed  ? 

Thus  the  principle  as  to  time  in  Sabbath  ob- 
servance insists,  not  on  the  essential  holiness  of 
any  twenty-four  hours  in  themselves,  but  on  the 
dedication  to  God  of  one  day  in  seven,  one  sev- 
enth of  the  time  as  nearly  as  that  proportion  can 
be  measured  by  the  most  convenient  means  avail- 
able. This,  the  third  theory  does,  while  it  accepts 
ail  the  facts  of  history.  "With  one  more  article, 
in  favor  of  the  third  theory  of  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath, we  shall  close  this  whole  discussion. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  321 


A    KEJOIN13EK. 


"  THE  PRINCIPLE  AS  TO  TIME  IN  SABBATH 
OBSERVANCE." 

Were  it  not  true  that  we  had  long  since  ceased 
to  be  surprised  at  anything  which  an  individual 
could  say  when  opposing  the  claims  of  the  Lord's 
Sabbath,  after  havino^  received  the  light  concern- 
ing  them,  our  astonishment  at  the  position  taken 
by  the  gentleman  of  the  Statesman,  in  the  fore- 
going article,  would  have  no  bounds. 

To  one  who  has  followed  him  thus  far  in  an 
elaborate  arorument,  runninof  throuo-h  a  series  of 
nine  communications,  all  for  the  purpose  of  es- 
tablishing, from  both  Scripture  and  history,  the 
chanore  of  the  Sabbath  from  the  seventh  to  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  and  the  obligation  under 
which  all  men  are  now  placed  to  observe  the  lat- 
ter instead  of  the  former,  it  will  be  extremely 
difficult  to  explain,  on  grounds  honorable  to  him- 
self, this  sudden  repudiation  of  all  which  he  has 
said  in  the  past,  while  endeavoring  to  defend  the 
newly  found  theory  of  the  observance  of  one  day 
in  seven,  to  the  exclusion  of  any  definite  day 
whatever. 

In  his  second  article,  he  says,  "  We  are  con- 
cerned here  and  now  simply  with  the  transfer  of 
the  Sabbath  from  the  seventh  to  the  first  day  of 

C  n     Am.  21  B 


322  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

the  week."  In  the  third  article,  when  speaking 
of  apostolic  times,  he  remarks  again,  "  It  was  also 
seen  that  while  the  observance  of  the  seventh 
day  was  not  continued,  another  day  of  the  v^eek, 
the  first,  took  its  place  as  the  stated  day  for  re- 
ligious assemblies  and  services."  Farther  on,  he 
writes  again,  as  follows  :  "  On  the  last  seventh 
day  on  which  the  disciples  rested,  according  to 
the  commandment,  the  Lord  himself  is  lying  in 
the  tomb.  The  glory  of  the  seventh  day  dies 
out  with  the  fading  light  of  that  day,  throughout 
the  whole  of  which  the  grave  claimed  the  body 
of  the  Redeemer.  But  the  glory  of  the  Sabbath 
of  the  Lord  survives.  It  receives  fresh  luster 
from  the  added  glories  of  the  Lord  of  the  Sab- 
bath. "The  Stone  which  the  builders  refused 
has  become  the  head  of  the  corner.'  It  is  very 
early  in  the  morning,  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
Again,  '  God  said.  Let  there  be  light ;  and  there 
was  light.'  The  Sun  of  Righteousness  has  risen 
with  healing  in  his  wings.  This  is  the  day  which 
the  Lord  has  made ;  we  will  rejoice  and  be  glad 
in  it.  The  first  day  of  the  week  has  become  the 
Lord's  day." 

But  we  must  cease  from  our  quotations,  for 
there  is  no  limit  to  expressions  synonymous  with 
the  above.  Not  only  so,  but  were  additional 
proof  necessary,  by  more  ample  extracts,  it  could 
be  made  to  appear  that  the  whole  theory  of  his 
defense,  as  already  declared,  has  rested  entirely 
upon  the  change  of  the  day  from  the  seventh. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  323 

which  was  observed  till  the  death  of  Christ,  to 
the  first,  which  was  honored  especially  by  our 
Lord,  by  his  personal  appearance  to  the  disciples 
on  the  first  and  second  Sundays  following  the 
resurrection,  and  by  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  with  the  especial 
view  of  teaching  the  disciples  that  it  had  become 
holy  time;  also,  that  they,  grasping  the  moral 
of  the  lesson  imparted  by  example,  if  not  by 
positive  precept,  inculcated  the  doctrine  of  the 
change,  and  made  it  binding  upon  all. 

If  we  are  right  in  this,  and  the  reader  who  has 
followed  the  debate  thus  far  will  unhesitatingly 
admit  that  such  are  the  facts,  then,  of  course,  the 
gentleman  is  arrayed  against  himself  in  a  manner 
most  distasteful,  no  doubt,  to  his  personal  feel- 
ings, as  well  as  disastrous  to  his  polished  logic ; 
for  to  the  mind  of  the  merest  school-boy  it  must 
be  apparent  that  a  change  of  Sabbath  .^from 
one  day  of  the  week  to  another,  involves  the 
definiteness  of  the  day  thus  honored  ;  i.  e.,  if  the 
first  day  of  the  week  is  now  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath because  of  the  nature  of  events  which  trans- 
pired upon  it  in  particular,  then,  of  course,  it  oc- 
cupies that  position  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other 
days;  but  this  utterly  demolishes  the  seventh- 
part-of-time  theory,  which  the  gentleman  has 
adopted,  the  very  essence  of  which  is,  that  there 
is  now  no  superiority  in  days,  and  the  individual 
is  left  free  to  choose  any  one  which  may  best  ac- 
cord with  his  tastes  or  subserve  his  interests. 


324  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

Here,  then,  we  come  to  a  dead  halt.  Which 
shall  we  believe,  the  nine  articles  of  the  gentle- 
man, or  the  tenth,  which  is  in  direct  conflict  with 
their  teachings  ?  Should  we  go  by  the  bulk  of 
the  testimony,  then  we  must  decide  that  there 
is  a  definite  day,  according  to  the  conviction  of 
our  opponent.  But  if  he  still  holds  to  that  doc- 
trine, then  that  which  he  has  said  against  the 
seventh-day  Sabbath,  on  the  ground  that  the 
earth  is  round,  and,  therefore,  that  the  Edenic 
Sabbath  could  not  be  kept  in  all  portions  of  it, 
is  deprived  of  all  its  force.  For,  assuredly,  if  he 
believes  that  God  now  requires  all  men  to  honor 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  world  over,  then  he 
must  admit  that  it  is  possible  for  them  to  do  so. 

But  if  it  is  possible  for  men  both  to  find  and 
to  celebrate  the  first  day  of  the  week,  on  a  round 
world,  then,  beyond  all  dispute,  the  same  process 
which  will  enable  tliem  to  do  this,  will  also  qual- 
ify them  to  locate  and  to  observe  the  seventh- 
day  Sabbath.  For  it  is  just  as  certain  as  math- 
ematical demonstration  can  make  it,  that  in  a 
week  consisting  of  seven  days,  having  found  the 
first  of  the  number,  in  order  to  discover  the  last, 
you  have  but  to  take  the  one  which  preceded  the 
known  day,  or,  if  you  please,  count  forward  six 
days  from  the  one  already  established,  and  you 
have  the  last  day  of  the  week  to  which  it  belongs. 

So,  too,  with  every  objection  urged  in  the  com- 
munication. The  one  in  regard  to  the  difticulties 
which   would  be  experienced  in    an  attem]:»t  to 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SADBATII.  325 

keep  the  Sabbath  of  the  commandment  at  the 
poles,  is  just  as  fatal  to  the  first  day  as  it  is  to 
the  seventh.  All  this  talk,  also,  in  regard  to  the 
impossibility  of  preserving  a  correct  count,  and 
of  the  lengthening  and  shortening  of  the  days, 
as  the  traveler  passes  from  the  east  to  the  west, 
if  it  has  any  force  at  all,  or  even  the  semblance 
of  force,  must  be  met  and  answered  equally  by 
the  observers  of  the  so-called  Christian  Sabbath, 
with  those  of  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord.  This 
being  true,  we  might  pause  right  here,  and  roll 
the  burden  onto  the  opposition.  Having  raised 
the  dust  which  is  blinding  the  eyes  of  the  igno- 
rant, yet  conscientious,  it  would  be  but  substan- 
tial justice  for  Sabbatarians  to  fall  back  and  say 
to  them.  Take  the  field,  orentlemen,  and  wrest 
from  the  hand  of  the  infidel  and  the  atheist  the 
weapons  with  which  you  have  armed  them  to  be 
employed  against  you  in  the  very  work  in  which 
you  are  engaged  ;  for,  be  it  remembered  that  the 
children  of  this  world  are  wiser  in  their  genera- 
tion than  the  children  of  light,  and  they  will 
readily  perceive  the  advantage  which  they  have 
gained  by  such  doctrines  and  difficulties  as  those 
to  which  the  gentleman  has  called  their  attention. 
This,  however,  we  shall  not  do,  but  shall  our- 
selves, in  due  time,  strike  at  the  very  root  of  the 
error,  in  the  interest  of  a  definite  and  universal 
day  of  holy  rest.  Before  entering  upon  this 
work,  nevertheless,  there  is  a  matter  which  con- 


32G  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

cerns  Sabbatarians  most  deeply,  to  which  atten- 
tion should  be  directed. 

The  gentleman  and  his  friends  are  pressing 
upon  the  nation  the  necessity  of  the  Constitu- 
tional Amendment — contrary  to  his  former  dec- 
laration, in  which  he  said  there  was  no  necessary 
connection  between  the  Sabbath  and  the  amend- 
ment. He  now  justifies  our  strictures  upon  the 
clisingenuousness  of  his  argument,  by  deliberately 
stating,  in  the  article  before  us,  with  an  air  of 
triumphant  exultation,  that,  the  amendment  once 
secured,  the  Sabbath  laws  in  this  country  will  then 
cease  to  be  a  dead  letter.  By  this,  he  means,  of 
course,  that  they  will  be  carried  into  operation. 
But  what  are  those  Sabbath  laws  ?  They  are 
laws  enforcing  the  first  day  of  the  week,  in  nearly 
every  State  in  the  Union. 

Now,  we  believe  that  what  the  gentleman  says 
will  be  fulfilled ;  but  right  here  is  the  proper  place 
to  oflfer  a  solemn  protest.  Will  the  gentleman  fine 
and  imprison  my  brethren  and  myself  for  disre- 
garding the  first  day  of  the  week,  after  having  con- 
scientiously kept  the  seventh  ?  If  so,  we  ask  for 
the  logic  by  which  such  a  course  could  be  justi- 
fied, on  the  ground  that  the  seventh-part-of-time 
theory  is  correct?  Now,  mark  it,  the  object  of 
the  amendment  is  to  make  the  Bible  the  fount- 
ain of  national  law.  All  the  enactments  of  the 
Congress  and  all  the  decisions  of  the  judiciary 
are  to  be  in  harmony  with  it.     If,  therefore.  Sab- 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  327 

bath  laws  are  passed,  tliey  must  be  such  as  the 
Scriptures  would  warrant;  for  the  Sabbath,  be 
it  remembered,  which  tliis  movement  seeks  to 
enforce,  is  the  one  which  the  Bible  teaches. 

But,  according  to  the  last  theory,  the  day  which 
God  now  requires  to  be  observed  is  not  any  one 
in  particular,  but  simply  one  in  seven,  the  indi- 
vidual being  left  to  make  the  selection  of  the  one 
which  he  prefers  thus  to  honor.  Now",  therefore,  it 
is  submitted  that  if  God  has  given  to  man  this  pre- 
rogative of  choice,  then  he  has  done  so  because 
this  course  was  the  one  w^hich  commended  itself 
to  infinite  wisdom,  and  no  person  or  set  of  persons 
has  a  right  to  come  between  the  creature  and  the 
Creator,  depriving  the  former  of  rights  which  the 
latter  has  guaranteed  to  him.  If  the  Bible  Sab- 
bath is  indeed  an  indefinite  one,  w^e  say  to  these 
gentlemen.  Hands  off;  in  the  name  of  religion 
and  the  Bible  you  shall  not  perform  a  work 
which  will  do  violence  to  a  lars^e  class  of  consci- 
entious  citizens,  and  which,  according  to  your 
own  argument,  is  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Christian  Sabbath,  as  laid  down  in  the  word  of 
God.  Be  consistent  w^ith  yourselves  and  your 
views  of  Scripture, 

If,  indeed,  you  are  sincere  in  believing  that 
Sabbatarians  violate  no  divine  law  in  the  keep- 
ing of  the  seventh  day,  then  v>^e  say  to  you  in 
the  name  of  charity.  Why  not  allow  them,  so  long 
as  they  are  Christian  men  and  women,  and  obe- 
dient citizens,  to  cany  out  their  convictions  of 


328  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

duty,  without  compelling  them,  by  the  appliances 
of  persecuting  legislation,  to  keep  the  particular 
first-day  Sabbath  which  indeed  you  have  chosen 
for  yourselves,  but  for  which  you  have  now 
ceased  to  claim  any  special  divine  honor  ?  To 
force  them,  either  to  disregard  their  own  convic- 
tions of  duty,  or  to  keep  two  days  holy,  would 
be  an  act  of  despotism  but  one  i-emove  from  that 
terrible  bigotry  which,  in  the  Inquisition,  resorted 
to  the  rack  and  the  thumbscrew ;  not,  indeed,  to 
make  men  better  Christians  or  better  citizens, 
but  to  coerce  them  into  the  acceptance  of  institu- 
tions for  which  there  was  no  divine  authority. 

But  we  must  pass  to  the  consideration  of  other 
points.  To  the  objection  that  the  seventh  day 
may  have  been  lost  since  creation,  and  that  he  is 
a  bold  man  who  would  affirm  his  ability  to  locate 
it  now,  it  may  be  replied  that,  while  Sabbatarians 
claim  for  themselves  no  unusual  amount  of  cour- 
age, tliey  do  insist  that  it  is  an  easy  matter  to 
demonstrate  the  succession  of  weeks,  and  the 
proper  place  of  the  original  seventh  day  in  the 
septenary  cycle  at  the  present  time.  The  way  in 
which  this  may  be  done  is  as  follows:  At  the 
creation  of  the  world,  God  blessed  and  sanctified 
the  seventh  day,  because  that  on  it  he  had  rested. 
At  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  he  gave  to  the  people 
a  written  law,  enforcing  the  Sabbatic  observance 
of  the  day  on  which  he  had  originally  ceased 
from  his  labors.  On  the  sixth,  Moses  said  to  the 
people,  "  To-morrow  is  the  rest  of  the  holy  Sab- 


SUNDAY   AND   THE   sabhatii.  329 

bath  unto  tlie  Lord."  For  forty  years  subsequent 
to  this,  God  marked  out  this  day  from  the  others 
by  causing  that  no  manna  should  fall  upon  it 
whatever,  whereas  it  fell  upon  every  other  one 
of  the  seven. 

Thus  we  have  the  authority  of  God  himself, 
who  assuredly  could  not  mistake,  that  the  people 
of  Israel,  in  the  outset,  had  committed  to  them 
the  original  seventh  day,  since  God  not  only 
o'ave  them  a  Sabbath,  but  also,  accordinoj  to  the 
reason  of  the  commandment,  the  Sabbath  of  the 
Lord.  Descending  the  line  of  history  to  the  days 
of  Christ,  we  find  him  declaring  that  he  hvA  kept 
his  Father's  commandments  (John  15  :  10).  But 
one  of  these  commandments  was  that  relating  to 
the  Sabbath ;  in  order,  therefore,  to  the  proper 
observance  of  it,  Christ  must  have  been  able  to 
decide  which  day  in  the  week  it  was.  That  this 
was  the  case,  none  will  dispute.  Thus  the  day 
is  located  in  his  time  satisfactorily,  since  he  kept 
the  same  one  which  the  Jews  regarded,  and 
which  preceded  the  day  of  his  resurrection. 
From  that  time  to  this,  we  have  the  general 
agreement  of  Jews,  Christians,  and  heathen,  in 
regard  to  the  precise  place  in  the  week  of  both 
the  first  and  the  seventh  day.  Surely,  this  is  all 
which  could  be  demanded  in  order  to  reach  rea- 
sonable certainty. 

The  difficulty  which  the  gentleman  finds  in 
harmonizing  the  will  of  God,  as  expressed  in  the 
law  of  nature  and  that  of  a  definite  Sabbath  for 


330  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

the  people  living  near  the  poles,  is  apparently 
possessed  of  some  force.  It  is,  however,  not  pe- 
culiar to  him.  These  barren  wastes  of  ice  and 
snow,  though  far  removed  from  our  civilization, 
are  apparently  destined  to  figure  as  largely  in 
the  spiritual  world  as  they  do  in  that  of  scientific 
research  ;  not  only  on  the  Sabhath  question,  but 
also  in  that  of  baptism,  it  has  a  part  to  act. 
Think,  says  the  advocate  of  sprinkling,  as  a 
shudder  runs  through  his  whole  system,  think  of 
an  immersion  administered  in  the  regions  of 
eternal  ice.  Then  having  suitably  impressed  his 
auditors  with  the  physical  difficulties  in  the  way 
of  Bible  baptism,  he  concludes  that  God  never 
could  have  ordained  immersion  as  the  only 
method,  since  it  is  impracticable  in  the  extreme 
north,  and  God  surely  would  have  commanded  a 
form  of  ordinance  which  could  be  carried  out  in 
all  parts  of  the  world. 

In  harmony  with  this  line  of  deduction  is  the 
difficulty  stated  by  our  friend.  Chiming  in  with 
the  theory  that  the  laws  of  nature  and  the  law 
of  God  must  run  harmoniously  together,  it  is 
shown  that  at  the  poles  the  days  and  nights  are 
six  months  long ;  and,  therefore,  that  a  twenty- 
four  hour  Sabbath,  definitely  located  upon  the 
last  day  of  the  week,  is  out  of  the  qaestion.  The 
conclusion  drawn  is  that,  as  the  theory  of  the 
seventh-day  Sabbatarians  is  in  conflict  with  the 
ordinance  of  nature  in  these  portions  of  the  globe, 
it  must  be  contrary  to  the  original  design  of  God. 


SUNDAY   AND    THE    SABBATH.  331 

But  pause  a  moment;  suppose  we  should  grant 
that  in  the  region  in  question  there  are  men  who 
cannot  keep  the  seventh-day  Sabbath  as  origin- 
ally ordained,  does  that  prove  of  necessity  that 
it  ought  not  to  be  hallowed  in  those  portions  of 
the  world  where  there  is  no  difficulty  in  the  way 
of  its  observance  ?  We  think  not.  To  illustrate  : 
Were  a  man  to  pass  his  life  in  a  coal  mine,  hun- 
dreds of  feet  beneath  the  surface,  laboring  con- 
tinually, and  never  seeing  the  sun  at  all,  would 
he,  therefore,  be  exempted  from  the  definite  Sab- 
bath ?  You  answer,  No.  But  why  is  this  reply  re- 
turned ?  Manifestly,  because  the  difficulty  is  not 
with  God  and  his  laws,  or  the  sun,  but  with  the  in- 
dividual who  has  voluntarily  placed  himself  under 
abnormal  circumstances.  In  other  words,  he  has 
located  himself  where  the  God  of  nature  never 
designed  that  he  should,  and,  in  so  doinpf,  he  has 
himself  created  a  difficulty  which  he  himself  can 
remove. 

So,  too,  with  the  Northman.  If  he  finds  it 
impossible  to  keep  a  Sabbath  which  is  most  per- 
fectly adapted  to  the  wants  of  mankind,  it  is 
simply  because  he  has  placed  himself  in  a  region 
which  God  has  declared  waste  and  uninhabitable 
as  emphatically  as  can  be  done  by  nature  speak- 
ing through  the  language  of  eternal  ice  and  snow, 
and  the  disappearance  for  six  months  in  a  year 
of  that  great  luminary  whose  light  and  heat  are 
so  indispensable  to  the  comfort  and  advancement 
of  the  race.     But,  if  this  is  true,  then  the  argu- 


3o'2  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

ment  from  the  conflict  betA\^een  the  law  of  the 
God  of  nature  and  that  of  revelation,  concerning 
a  definite  day  of  rest,  loses  all  of  its  force ;  for  the 
whole  trouble  arises,  not  from  any  want  of  adap- 
tation on  the  part  of  such  a  rest  to  the  circum- 
stances of  those  who  are  where  God  would  have 
them  located,  but  from  a  disregard,  in  the  first 
place,  on  the  part  of  the  nations  in  question,  of 
the  manifest  law  of  prohibition  to  the  settlement 
of  regions  which  were  designed  to  remain  un- 
occupied. 

Their  relief  can  be  found  in  one  of  two  direc- 
tions :  They  can,  in  the  interest  of  their  own 
progress,  retrace  their  stej)s  to  localities  where 
the  more  advanced  portion  of  the  race  feel  the 
genial  influence  of  a  diurnal  sun ;  or,  should  they 
insist  upon  remaining  in  the  bleak  regions  of 
their  choice,  it  is  possible  for  them,  according  to 
the  accounts  of  travelers,  to  mark  by  the  varia- 
tions of  the  twilight,  even  in  their  six  months' 
night,  the  boundaries  of  the  Sabbath  and  the 
week  days  as  they  come  and  go  to  those  residing 
in  more  temperate  regions. 

It  is  now  time  to  grapple  with  the  theory  that 
it  is  impossible  for  those  traveling  around  the 
world  and  those  living  in  different  portions  of  it 
to  keep  one  and  the  same  day.  The  first  thing 
to  be  settled  is  the  matter  of  what  is  meant  by 
the  expression,  "  the  same  day."  Upon  this 
point,  the  gentleman  has  wasted  many  words. 
We  have  never  insisted  upon  the  identical  hours. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  333 

All  that  we  demand  is  that  the  same  day  should 
be  observed  throughout  the  habitable  globe,  i.  c, 
each  individual  should  celebrate  in  his  own  par- 
ticular locality  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  as  it 
comes  to  him  in  its  passage  round  the  earth — to 
use  the  language  of  common  parlance. 

Whether  this  can  be  done  or  not  is  a  question 
which  involves  the  wisdom  of  God ;  for,  granting 
that  he  gave  the  fourth  commandment  as  a  Sab- 
bath law,  and  the  regulations  concerning  the 
Sabbath,  as  found  in  the  books  of  Moses,  there  is 
no  room  for  dispute  that  he  understood  the  stat- 
ute to  enforce  the  keeping  of  a  definite  day,  and 
not  merely  one-seventh  part  of  time.  In  the 
sixteenth  chapter  of  Exodus,  where  the  Sabbath 
is  first  introduced,  is  found  an  excellent  opportu- 
nity to  test  this  matter.  He  there  marks  out 
the  day  which  he  had  hallowed  as  the  one  which 
followed  the  sixth,  and  the  only  one  on  which  no 
manna  fell.  For  forty  years,  also,  this  practice 
of  separating  the  day  of  his  rest  by  a  weekly 
miracle  from  all  others  was  continued.  But 
why  should  he  have  done  this  if  there  was  no 
choice,  and  if  the  keeping  of  the  seventh  part  of 
time  was  all  that  was  necessary  ?  Nay,  more, 
why  did  he  make  it  absolutely  impossible  for  a 
man  to  celebrate  any  other  day  but  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week  ?  That  he  did  so,  we  can  prove 
in  a  few  words. 

We  will  suppose  that  a  person  entertaining 


334  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

the  sentiments  of  the  gentleman  should  have  at- 
tempted to  carry  them  out  in  the  forty  years 
during  which  God  led  the  people  in  the  wilder- 
ness ;  also,  that  his  first  experiment  was  that  of 
Sunday  rest.  In  this  he  would  have  failed  ut- 
terly. Do  you  ask,  How  ?  I  answer  that  God 
had  decreed  that  no  manna  should  fall  on  the 
seventh  day  (Ex.  IG :  26),  and  that  the  manna 
which  was  to  be  eaten  on  the  Sabbath  should  be 
gathered  on  the  day  before  (Ex.  16:5).  It  would 
therefore  have  been  impossible  for  the  individual 
in  question  to  provide  food  for  his  Sunday  rest. 
But,  disgusted  with  this  kind  of  Sabbath -keeping, 
suppose  he  should  have  tried,  in  order,  Monday, 
Tuesday,  Wednesday,  Thursday,  and  Friday,  the 
result  would  not  have  varied  materially.  On 
Sunday,  there  was  an  utter  absence  of  all  food ; 
on  the  other  days,  that  which  had  been  previ- 
ously gathered,  instead  of  being  fit  for  use,  would 
have  been  found  corrupted  and  changed  into 
loathsome  worms,  since  God  had  told  the  people 
that  only  the  manna  which  was  gathered  on  the 
sixth  day  should  be  kept  until  the  day  following; 
and  some  of  them,  having  made  the  experiment 
of  disobeying  in  the  particular  in  question,  found 
the  result  as  cited  above  (Ex.  16:19,  20).  On 
the  other  hand,  should  the  same  individual  have 
decided  finally  to  consecrate  the  seventh  day  of 
the  week,  he  would  have  found  no  difficulty 
whatever.     Gathering  his  double  portion  of  the 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  335 

manna  on  the  sixth  day,  by  a  miracle  of  God  it 
would  have  been  preserved  pure  and  wholesome 
through  the  last  day  of  the  week. 

But  how  can  this  be  accounted  for  on  the  hy- 
pothesis that  no  particular  day  was  chosen  by  the 
Lord  ?  If,  indeed,  he  had  adopted  the  indefinite 
plan,  and  had  left  the  j^eople  to  choose  for  them- 
selves, it  is  certain  that  he  did  this  because  it  was 
the  best  method.  But  if  it  were  the  best  meth- 
od, and  if  it  were  in  accordance  with  his  view  of 
the  statute,  then,  assuredly,  he  would  not  have 
stultified  himself  and  mocked  the  people  by  first 
granting  them  a  privilege  and  then,  by  his  prov- 
idence, preventing  them  from  carrying  it  out. 

Should  it  be  suoraested  that  this  law  was  con- 

OS) 

fined  to  the  land  of  Palestine  and  to  the  Jews  in 
its  operation,  I  answer;  first,  that  at  the  time 
spoken  of  the  people  were  in  Arabia,  not  in  Ju- 
dea,  and  that  even  should  that  be  granted,  which 
is  not  true,  viz.,  that  the  fourth  commandment 
related  simply  to  the  Hebrews,  this  does  not  af- 
fect the  question  at  all,  for  no  one  will  insist  that 
Jews  were  only  obliged  by  it  when  in  Judea. 
Wherever  they  might  be,  they  were  required  to 
keep  the  Sabbath,  whether  in  bondage  in  Assyria, 
or  traversing  the  known  world  in  quest  of  gain. 
From  Spain  to  India,  from  Scythia  to  Africa,  this 
law  was  designed  to  apply  and  did  apply  for 
hundreds  of  years  before  it  will  be  even  claimed 
that  it  was  abolished.  This  being  true,  it  is  es- 
tablished beyond  question  that  God  himself  im- 


336  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

posed  upon  men,  traversing  the  whole  of  the 
eastern  continent,  a  uniform  day  of  worship. 

Do  you  inquire  when  they  commenced  it  ?  I 
answer,  At  sunset,  agreeably  to  the  direction  in 
Lev.  23  :  32.  Did  they  go  eastward  to  the  Pa- 
cific, or  westward  to  the  Atlantic,  they  were  re- 
quired to  commence  their  rest  at  that  hour.  Was 
it  impossible  for  them  to  do  so  ?  He  that  says  so 
charges  God  with  folly.  Were  they  capable  of 
carrying  out  the  requirement  ?  Then,  at  least 
on  the  eastern  continent,  the  definite  day  was  a 
practicable  thing.  God  knew  how  his  people 
would  be  scattered ;  he  gave  them  the  institution 
of  the  Sabbath,  adapted  to  whatever  circum- 
stances they  might  be  placed  in ;  he  marked  out 
that  Sabbath  from  the  rest  of  the  week,  and  in 
the  outset  settled  beyond  controversy  the  ques- 
tion that  it  was  not  movable  in  its  nature. 
Therefore,  he  who  would  accept  the  theory  which 
we  have  been  considering  and  repudiate  the  one 
which  we  indorse,  must  do  it  in  the  face  of  God^ 
explanatory  providence,  in  the  teeth  of  his  writ- 
ten law,  and  against  the  practice  of  his  people, 
Israel,  who  for  centuries  have  had  no  difiiculty 
in  finding  the  Sabbath  in  every  latitude. 

So  much  for  the  law  and  its  history,  making 
clear,  as  it  does,  that  our  opponents  do  not  under- 
stand the  possibilities  of  the  case  as  God  looks 
upon  them.  We  will  now  proceed  to  the  consid- 
eration of  the  difficulties  which  they  discover  in 
the  realization  of  our  theory. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  337 

It  is  claimed  that,  in  going  around  the  world 
eastward,  a  day  is  gained ;  and  in  going  around 
westward,  a  day  is  lost,  to  the  traveler.  From 
these  premises  it  is  argued  that  a  definite  day 
cannot  be  kept.  Has  it  ever  occurred  to  the 
gentlemali  that  his  own  theory  would  be  some- 
what disturbed  by  the  same  trip  ?  Mark  it,  it  is 
exactly  one-seventh  part  of  time  which  is  to  be 
kept.  It  will  hardly  be  urged  that  all  the  old 
watches  in  the  land  are  reliable  enough  to  be 
trusted  in  a  journey  of  this  length,  and,  besides, 
suppose  we  had  lived  in  a  period  when  such  time- 
pieces were  not  known,  then  what  ?  Oh  !  says 
the  objector,  we  would  have  gone  by  the  sun. 
Then  you  agree  with  us,  after  all,  that  the  sun 
presents  the  most  available  method  of  marking 
the  day ;  but  remember,  now,  that  you  are  on 
your  journey  round  the  earth,  westward;  you 
travel  six  days,  each  one  considerably  lengthened 
out  by  the  fact  that  you  are  going  with  the  sun ; 
you  stop  and  rest  on  the  seventh  day,  which  you 
call  the  Sabbath.  Unfortunately,  however,  as 
you  have  been  lying  still,  it  is  considerably  short- 
er than  your  six  days  of  work ;  by  this  means 
you  have  cheated  the  Lord  out  of  one-seventh  of 
the  whole  time  which  all  of  the  six  days  had  in 
excess  over  the  one  on  which  you  rested.  Trav- 
eling eastward,  the  opposite  would  be  true,  and 
your  days  of  rest  would  be  longer  than  your  days 

Con.  Am.  2i'2  B 


338  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

of  labor,  and  would  not,  therefore,  represent  one- 
seventh  part  of  time. 

Again,  we  might  show  by  argument  the  com- 
plete anarchy  into  v/hich  the  community  would 
be  thrown  by  the  realization  of  this  doctrine,  that 
each  man  for  himself  is  at  liberty  to  fix  upon  his 
weekly  Sabbath.  Nothing  would  be  easier  to 
prove  than  that  it  would  seriously  obstruct  your 
courts  of  justice ;  that  it  would  render  stated 
worship  impossible ;  in  fine,  that  it  would  bring 
confusion  into  every  walk  in  life. 

Do  you  reply  that  you  will  obviate  the  difiicul- 
ty  by  legislative  enactment,  and  that  you  will 
make  this  whole  nation,  from  New  York  to  San 
Francisco,  regard  the  Sunday  for  the  sake  of  uni- 
formity and  good  order  ?  I  answer ;  first,  have 
you  then  improved  upon  God's  great  plan  ?  Did 
he  not  know  that  a  definite  day  would  be  the 
best,  and  would  he  not  have  been  likely  to  give 
it  to  us  ?  Secondly,  then  you  admit  that  it  is, 
after  all,  possible  to  keep  one  and  the  same  day 
across  the  whole  of  this  continent ;  for  were  this 
not  true  it  would  be  idle  for  you  to  attempt  to  pro- 
duce uniformity  by  legislation.  But  putting  this 
concession  of  yours  in  regard  to  the  western,  along- 
side of  God's  enforcement  of  a  definite  day  for 
centuries,  on  the  whole  of  the  eastern,  continent, 
the  circuit  of  the  globe  is  made,  and  the  possibil- 
ity of  keeping  a  definite  Sabbath  on  both  hemi- 
spheres is  established. 

Before  me  lies  the  draft  of  an  electrical  clock, 


SUNDAY    AND    TIIK    SAIiRATir.  339 

which  is  styled,  "  Tlie  clock  of  all  nations."  The 
desio^n  is  an  imxenious  one,  and  serves  to  show  at 
a  glance  the  difference  in  time  between  promi- 
nent cities  in  all  parts  of  the  globe.  For  this 
purpose,  a  central  dial  is  drafted,  representing  the 
meridian  of  New  York.  The  hands  on  this  dial 
indicate  the  precise  hour  of  noon.  Around  this 
central  figure  are  arranged  twenty  additional  di- 
als, on  each  one  of  which  is  marked  by  the  hands 
the  time  of  day  as  it  will  exist  in  the  cities 
named,  commencing  on  the  east  of  New  Yoi'k 
with  Pekin,  and  terminating  to  the  west  of  it 
with  San  Francisco.  By  it,  you  perceive  at  a 
glance  the  precise  variation  of  time  in  the  differ- 
ent longitudes  to  which  these  cities  belong. 

For  example,  while  the  clock  of  New  York  in- 
dicates twelve,  noon,  the  one  in  Pekin  indicates 
twenty  minutes  before  one  in  the  morning ;  the 
one  in  Kome,  fifteen  minutes  to  six  P.  M. ;  the 
one  in  London,  five  minutes  of  five  p.  m.  ;  and 
so  on  until  you  reach  New  York,  where  it  is 
twelve  :m.  Then  passing  westward  of  that  point, 
where  the  time  is,  of  course,  slower,  the  dial  for 
Chicago  marks  seven  minutes  past  eleven  A.  M. ; 
that  of  St.  Louis,  five  minutes  of  eleven  A.  M. ; 
that  in  San  Francisco,  fifteen  minutes  before  nine 
A.  M.  By  this  means,  the  variation  between  Pe- 
kin and  San  Francisco  is  shown  to  be  about  six- 
teen hours,  or  nearly  two-thirds  of  one  whole  day. 
By  the  same  method,  the  reader  will  at  once  dis- 
cern that  it  is  possible  to  locate  the  commence- 


340  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

ment  of  the  clay  at  any  one  of  these  points  in  its 
passage  around  the  world. 

In  order  to  do  this,  let  it  be  supposed  that  the 
day  begins  when  it  did  in  Bible  times,  with  the 
setting  of  the  sun.  It  is,  if  you  please,  Sunday 
at  Pekin,  and  those  who  keep  that  day  commence 
to  celebrate  it  at  sunset.  Now,  if  we  would  as- 
certain just  when  the  citizens  of  Rome  would  en- 
ter upon  a  like  service,  it  is  only  necessary  to  de- 
termine how  long  it  would  take  the  sunset  to 
travel  the  distance  separating  these  two  cities. 
By  consulting  the  draft  in  question,  we  find  that 
the  time  at  Rome  is  six  hours  and  fifty-five  min- 
utes slower  than  that  at  Pekin.  This  being  the 
case,  the  sunset  would  reach  them,  and  they  would 
enter  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  just  six  hours 
and  fifty-five  minutes  after  those  dwelling  on  the 
meridian  of  Pekin  have  done  so. 

So  we  might  go  through  the  whole  list.  As 
the  world  revolves  upon  its  axis,  it  would  bring 
London  to  the  same  point  where  the  people  of 
Rome  saw  the  sun  sink  in  the  west  and  en- 
tered upon  the  Sunday,  just  fifty  minutes  subse- 
quent to  that  event.  The  citizens  of  New  York 
would  begin  their  Sunday,  also,  with  the  sunset, 
four  hours  and  fifty-five  minutes  after  those  of 
London  did  so ;  and  those  of  Chicago,  fifty -five 
minutes  later  than  those  of  New  York ;  and  those 
of  San  Francisco,  two  hours  and  twenty  minutes 
subsequent  to  those  of  Chicago.  All,  however, 
would  be  hallowing  the  same  day,  though  not, 


SUNDAY    AND    Till-:    SAIilJATH.  341 

for  a  portion  of  the  time,  the  same  hours.*  Each, 
in  his  own  proper  locality,  would  commence  to 
keep  the  day  when  it  reached  him,  and  continue 
to  keep  it  until  by  a  complete  revolution  of  the 
earth  he  is  brought  around  to  the  commencement 
of  another  day,  as  indicated  by  another  decline  of 
the  sun.     This  is  as  God  would  have  it. 

In  the  passage  from  Egypt  to  Palestine  there 
was  a  variation  of  some  minutes ;  but  there  Avas 
no  chano^e  in  the  time  of  commencino^  the  Sab- 
bath.  From  even  to  even  shall  you  keep  your 
Sabbaths,  was  the  divine  edict,  and  his  people,  in 
going  eastward  or  westward,  obeyed  this  injunc- 
tion. In  doing  so  they  needed  no  time-piece  ; 
nor  would  the  traveler  at  the  present  time.  In 
every  habitable  region,  according  to  God's  plan, 
the  great  luminary  of  heaven  visibly  marks  the 
boundaries  of  sacred  time.  The  day  began  in 
the  east,  and  travels  to  the  west.  A  complete 
revolution  of  the  earth  brings  it,  with  its  com- 

"^  By  consulting  the  figures  given  above,  the  reader  will  be  able 
to  demonstrate,  not  only  the  fact  that  the  inhabitants  along  the 
line  from  Pekin  to  San  Francisco,  can  hallow  the  same  day,  but 
also  that  the  day  which  they  hallow  will  be  identical  in  some  of  its 
hours.  For  example  :  It  was  shown  that  the  people  of  Rome 
commence  their  day  six  hours  and  fifty-five  minutes  later  than  do 
those  of  Pekin.  Deducting  these  six  hours  and  fift^ -five  minutes 
from  twenty-four  hours,  we  have  left  seventeen  hours  and  five 
minutes  as  the  period  of  time  during  which  the  citizens  of  these 
two  cities  would  be  celebratinc:  the  Sabbath  in  common.  Apply- 
ing the  same  principle  to  other  cities,  we  find  that  London  and 
Pekin  would  worship  together  for  sixteen  hours  and  fifteen  min- 
utes;  New  York  and  Pekin,  eleven  hours  and  twenty  minutes; 
Chicago  and  Pekin,  ten  hours  and  twenty-five  minutes  ;  San  Fran- 
cisco and  Pekin,  eight  hours  and  five  minntcs. 


342  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

})lement  of  liglit  and  darkness,  to  the  home  of 
every  man,  no  matter  as  to  the  meridian  of  lon- 
gitude in  which  he  lives.  It  is  the  same  day,  in 
the  Bible  sense,  as  that  kept  by  the  Christian 
thousands  of  miles  to  the  east  of  him,  though  it 
may  not  begin  at  exactly  the  same  moment. 

Practically,  this  question  has  no  real  significance 
whatever.  Though  it  may  puzzle  the  brain  of 
one  who  has  not  before  him  the  facts,  it  has  been 
settled  forever  in  a  most  remarkable  manner  by 
the  usage  of  mankind.  The  fact  is  beyond  cavil 
that,  from  the  extreme  eastern  boundary  of  the 
eastern  continent  to  the  extreme  western  verge 
of  tlie  western  continent,  there  is  such  a  perfect 
agreement  upon  this  point  that  each  day  of  the 
week,  commencing  on  the  w^estern  shore  of  the 
Pacific,  continues  its  course  across  Asia,  Europe, 
and  America,  until  it  arrives  at  the  eastern  shore 
of  the  same  sea.  So  true  is  this  that,  were  there 
a  line  of  churches  surmounted  with  bells,  in  hear- 
ing distance  of  each  other,  they  could  ring  in  the 
commencement  of  any  day  ;  say  at  Yokohama  in 
Japan,  and  its  march  could  be  made  known  along 
the  whole  line  from  that  place  to  San  Francisco 
by  a  like  practice  in  each  of  the  churches,  with- 
out a  solitary  break  until  the  last  bell  on  the 
Pacific  coast  had  announced  its  arrival  there. 
Whether  it  be  admitted  that  it  can  be  done  or 
not,  it  is  a  fact  that  the  Christians  from  China  to 
California  do  observe  the  same  Sabbath  or  Sun- 
day all  along  tlie  line  between  the  tw^o  points. 


SU.NDAY    AXD    THE    SACEATH.  343 

Should  it  be  replied  that,  although  there  is  a 
uniform  reckoning  of  the  days  to  those  passing 
from  San  Francisco  eastward  to  China,  or  from 
China  westwa,rd  to  San  Francisco,  that,  neverthe- 
less, should  they  cross  the  Pacific  Ocean  from 
San  Francisco  westward  to  China,  or  from  China 
eastward  to  San  Francisco,  it  would  be  necessary 
for  them  in  the  first  case  to  add  a  day,  and  in  the 
•last,  to  drop  one,  in  order  to  make  their  time  har- 
monize with  that  of  the  people  in  these  two 
countries,  the  reply  is,  that  this  is  very  true.  It 
does  not,  however,  prove  that  there  is  no  definite 
day  which  can  be  kept  alike  by  the  inhabitants 
of  the  two  continents ;  for  in  order  to  the  keep- 
ing of  the  same  day  on  a  round  world  there  must 
somewhere  be  a  day-line,  in  other  words,  there 
must  be  a  point  where  the  day  begins.  In  cross- 
ing that  line  the  same  result  would  ensue  as  that 
claimed  in  the  passage  from  California  to  China 
via  the  Pacific,  i.  e.,  a  day  must  be  either  dropped 
or  added  in  the  reckoning  of  the  individual  mak- 
ing the  transit. 

We  have  already  seen  that  God's  plan  was  to 
measure  the  days  by  the  setting  of  the  sun. 
This  being  the  case,  the  fourth  day,  on  which  the 
sun  was  made,  commenced  at  the  precise  point 
where  at  the  time  of  its  creation  it  would  have 
appeared  to  a  person  to  the  east  of  it  as  sinking 
out  of  sight  in  the  west.  The  day  commencing 
at  that  point  passed  around  the  earth  until  every 
portion  of  it  had  in  succession  witnessed  the  set- 


344  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

ting  of  tlie  sun  on  the  fifth  da}'-.  The  only  diffi- 
culty that  remains  in  the  case,  consequently,  is 
that  of  deciding  where  the  day-line  should  be  lo- 
cated. As  already  discovered,  the  practice  of  na- 
tions has  fixed  it  in  the  Pacific  Ocean.  It  is  not 
a  little  remarkable  that  sailors  change  their  reck- 
oning while  crossing  that  ocean  backward  or  for- 
ward, and  circumnavigate  the  globe  at  will  with- 
out the  slightest  confusion.  The  only  instance 
which  has  been  cited  in  which  any  trouble  has 
occurred,  or  any  confusion  of  date  has  arisen,  is 
that  of  Pitcairn's  Island,  in  wdiich  they  failed  to 
make  the  change  under  consideration.*  Had  they 
done  this,  they  would  have  found  themselves  in 
harmony  with  the  great  mass  of  men  living  on 
the  same  meridian  with  their  insignificant  island. 
The  only  matter  of  debate  which  remains  is 
that  concerning  the  proper  location  of  the  day- 
line.  Has  there  or  has  there  not  been  a  mistake 
made  in  fixing  upon  the  place  where  it  belongs  ? 
Certain  it  is  that  the  providence  of  God  seems  to 
harmonize  with  the  present  arrangement.  Man 
commenced  his  existence  in  the  east.  The  prog- 
ress of  empire  has  been  westward.  Emigra- 
tion has  carried  with  it  a  harmonious  system  of 

*The  gentleman  might  have  cited  the  case  of  Alaska,  also,  as  a 
parallel  to  that  of  Pitcairn's  Island.  The  inhabitants  of  this  re- 
gion, like  those  of  the  island  mentioned,  sailed  eastward  to  this 
continent  across  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  failed  to  drop  the  required 
day  in  their  reckoning.  The  result  was,  that  when  we  purchased 
that  territory,  they  were  found  to  be  keeping  Saturday  instead  of 
Sunday.    We  believe,  however,  that  the  mistake  is  now  rectified. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SADBATII.  345 

counting  the  days,  by  which  they  liave  been  rec- 

oofnized  as  befjinninor  on  the  eastern,  and  travel- 
er O  CD  ' 

ing  to  the  western,  continent.     Especially  is  this 
true  of  the  Christian  world. 

But,  again,  is  there  not,  aside  from  this  provi- 
dential arrangement  and  from  the  universal  opin- 
ion that  the  day  does  begin  in  the  east,  as  well 
as  the  fact  that  scientific  men  have  established 
the  point  of  changing  the  reckoning  somewhere 
in  the  Pacific  Ocean,  some  additional  reason  for 
supposing  that  God  would  choose  this  locality 
for  the  beginning  of  the  clay  ?  We  answer, 
There  is.  Should  the  day-line  run  through  any 
continent  or  large  body  of  land,  it  will  be  readily 
perceived  that  it  would  produce  great  confusion, 
since,  on  the  one  side  of  it,  though  imaginary  in 
its  character,  individuals  would  be  keeping  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week,  while  on  the  other, 
their  neighbors  in  close  proximity  to  them  would 
not  yet  have  made  their  exit  from  the  sixth. 

To  avoid  this  difficulty,  therefore,  the  only 
remedy  which  could  be  found  would  consist  in 
the  employment  of  some  great  natural  boundary, 
such  as  a  range  of  mountains  or  an  expanse  of 
water,  by  which  those  on  one  side  of  the  day-line 
would  be  so  separated  as  to  prevent  the  disorder 
which  must  arise  from  constant  and  uninterrupted 
intercommunication.  That  there  is  any  range  of 
mountains  stretchino^  northward  and  southward 
from  pole  to  pole  which  would  answer  the  pur- 
pose in  c[uestion,  no  one  will  insist.     The  only 


346  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

resource  left,  consequently,  is  that  of  those  vast 
bodies  of  water  called  seas  or  oceans. 

Turning  now  to  the  one  which  is  known  as 
the  Atlantic  Ocean,  it  is  found  that  the  day-line 
could  not  be  run  through  it  without  intercepting 
some  habitable  portion  of  the  globe.  The  only 
resource  which  remains  is  found  in  the  Pacific 
Ocean,  which,  as  has  been  seen,  has  been  selected 
by  the  mass  of  mankind  as  a  suitable  place  in 
which  to  make  those  changes  that  would  be  nec- 
essary in  case  the  day-line  was  actually  located 
therein.  Happily,  an  examination  of  a  large 
globe  will  prove  that  a  line  drawn  from  Behring's 
Straits  southward  across  the  latitudes  which  are 
available  for  the  homes  of  mankind  will  not 
touch  any  portions  of  land  whatever,  or  at  least 
if  it  strikes  any  they  would  be  so  insignificant  in 
their  character  that  they  would  not  be  worthy  of 
mention. 

With  these  remarks,  the  subject  of  the  day-line 
is  dismissed  with  the  conviction  that  the  necessity 
of  its  existence,  the  fact  that  it  must  be  found 
in  the  Pacific  Ocean  if  anywhere,  and  the  uni- 
form recognition  in  practice,  if  not  in  theory,  by 
all  nations,  of  its  location  in  that  sea,  unite  in 
furnishing  a  combination  of  facts  which  render 
assurance  justifiable  in  the  mind  of  one  who  does 
not  insist  upon  more  testimony  than  he  ought  to 
demand. 

There  remain  now  but  two  matters  in  the  ar- 
ticle of  the  gentleman  wliich  need  to  be  disposed 


SUNDAY    AND    THE   SABBATH.  3i7 

of.  These  are  found  in  the  contemptuous  sneer 
at  the  insignificance  of  the  numbers  of  Sabbata- 
rians, and  the  witticisms,  if  such  they  may  be 
called,  \Yhich  are  indulged  in  in  the  employment  of 
the  suggestion  concerning  the  use  of  the  sponges 
saturated  with  stupefying  chemicals  and  the  gra- 
tuitous trip  around  the  world,  which  it  is  proposed 
to  give  them. 

To  answer  these  sallies  to  the  satisfaction  of 
some  would  be  impossible,  while  with  others,  pos- 
sessing the  power  of  logical  discrimination  and 
knowing  that  the  office  of  mere  wit  is  most  fre- 
quently that  of  diverting  the  attention  from  a 
course  of  reasoning  which  it  is  felt  cannot  be  met, 
such  an  effort  would  be  uncalled  for.  The  pau- 
city in  numbers  is  the  same  old,  threadbare  objec- 
tion which  every  great  reform  has  been  compelled 
to  meet  since  the  world  began.  While  the  ad- 
ministration of  narcotics  and  the  trip  round  the 
world  would  be  just  as  fatal  to  the  exact  observer 
of  the  seventh  part  of  time  as  it  would  to  one 
celebrating  a  definite  day,  even  though  it  were 
admitted  that  the  consequences  of  such  a  journey 
v/ould  be  as  claimed  by  the  writer. 

But  besides  all  this,  it  will  be  discovered  that 
the  basis  of  the  whole  transaction,  both  in  the 
case  of  the  sponge  and  the  vessel,  is  fraud,  deceit, 
and  force.  Stupefy  a  man  with  narcotics  for 
twenty-four  hours ;  or  nail  him  down  under  the 
hatches  of  a  circumnavi^atincr  vessel :  break  the 
compass ;  send   him   round   the   world ;  let   the 


348  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

whole  community  conspire  to  falsify  the  facts  in 
the  case  ;  do  not  let  him  know  where  he  has  been  ; 
falsify  the  truth  regarding  the  day  observed  by 
first-day  keepers ;  and  then,  forsooth,  you  have 
changed  the  practice,  if  not  convinced  the  judg- 
ment, of  a  little  handful  of  conscientious,  defi- 
nite Sabbath-day  keepers.  Wonderful,  gentle- 
men !  Wonderful  in  the  extreme !  What  re- 
sults for  such  prodigious  efforts  !  Alas,  for  truth, 
when  it  must  pass  such  an  ordeal  as  this  !  We  . 
blush,  but  not  for  ourselves.  We  svould  almost 
be  willing  to  inhale  the  anaesthetic  or  run  the 
hazard  of  the  voyage  at  sea,  taking  our  chances 
respecting  the  proper  preservation  of  the  Heaven- 
appointed  day  of  rest,  if,  by  so  doing,  we  might 
prevent  our  brethren  of  the  Amendment  school, 
for  whose  welfare  we  have  the  most  earnest  de- 
sire, from  making  so  sorry  a  show  of  the  low  es- 
timate which  ihey  place  upon  the  importance  of 
employing  in  a  controversy  like  this,  arguments 
which  appeal  only  to  tlie  Christian's  head  and 
heart,  instead  of  those  which  appeal  to  the  baser 
faculties  of  the  mind. 

A  summary  of  the  ground  traveled  in  this  re- 
joinder would  run  somewhat  as  follows  : — 

1.  That  in  adopting  the  seventh-part-of-time 
theory,  the  gentleman  has  abandoned  the  def- 
inite first  day  which  he  sought  to  establish  in 
the  first  nine  of  his  articles. 

2.  That  the  seventh-part-of-time  theory  is  just 
as  fatal  to  the  Sunday  as  it  is  to  the  Sabbath. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  349 

3.  That  it  overturns  the  practicability  of  the 
proposed  Amendment,  since  it  seeks  to  enforce  a 
definite  day,  and  since,  according  to  it,  Sabbatari- 
ans have  a  Bible  right  to  observe  the  seventh  day 
in  the  exercise  of  a  divinely  given  choice  of  days. 

4.  That  it  is  possible  to  establish  the  identity 
of  the  last  day  of  the  week  at  the  present  time 
with  that  upon  vvdiich  God  rested  at  the  comple- 
tion of  the  creation ;  from  the  providential  man- 
ner in  which  God  pointed  it  out  in  the  exodus 
from  Egypt ;  the  fact  that  Christ  and  his  disciples 
kept  the  Sabbath  according  to  the  command- 
ment ;  the  general  agreement  among  Jews,  Chris- 
tians, and  heathen  concerning  its  place  in  the 
week  from  that  time  to  this. 

5.  That  the  objection  concerning  the  conflict  be- 
tween a  definite  Sabbath  and  the  laws  of  nature  at 
the  poles  does  not  array  the  God  of  nature  against 
himself,  or  our  version  of  his  commandment,  since 
the  trouble  does  not  imply  any  want  of  foresight  on 
the  part  of  the  Deity,  but  rather  a  disregard  of 
the  plainest  teachings  of  both  providence  and 
nature  on  the  part  of  those  who  have  placed 
themselves  where  it  was  never  designed  that 
men  should  locate. 

6.  That  if  a  definite  day  is  impossible,  then 
the  wisdom  of  God  is  impeached,  since,  both  by 
the  letter  of  the  commandment  and  by  his  prov- 
idential interpretation  of  it  for  forty  years,  that 
is  the  very  thing  which  it  inculcates. 

7.  That  a  definite  day  can  be   kept  on  the 


350  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

eastern  continent,  since  this  had  been  done  for 
hundreds  of  years  before  the  change  of  the  law 
will  be  even  claimed. 

8.  That  a  definite  day  can  be  observed  on  the 
western  continent,  since  this  is  the  very  object 
which  the  Amendment  is  designed  to  secure. 

9.  That  the  trip  around  the  world  would  ren- 
der it  as  impossible  to  keep  an  exact  seventh  part 
of  time  as  it  would  a  definite  seventh  day. 

10.  That  the  seventh-part-of-time  theory  would 
introduce  into  society  the  direst  confusion,  de- 
feating even  the  administration  of  justice. 

11.  That,  practically,  the  whole  world  from  the 
extreme  east  to  the  extreme  west  does  keep  a 
definite  day. 

12.  That  the  loss  and  gain  of  time  creates  no 
disturbance  except  in  the  crossing  of  the  Pacific 
Ocean. 

13.  That  with  a  definite  day,  there  must  be  a 
day-line. 

14.  That  that  day-line  is,  by  the  uniform  prac- 
tice of  nations,  and  the  providence  of  God,  which 
renders  it  impossible  that  it  should  exist  any- 
where else,  drawn  through  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

15.  That  it  only  remains  for  us  to  do  just 
what  we  are  doing  and  have  been  doing  for  cent- 
uries in  order  to  prove  by  actual  demonstration 
that  all  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  a  definite 
Sabbath  can  be  readily  disposed  of  by  those  who 
are  desirous  of  keeping  the  law  of  God  as  it 
reads. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABDATII.  351 


STATESMAN'S    REPLY. 


^a^:r.ticxjE     exjE-vehst 


THE   TllUE   THEOEY   OF   THE   CHRISTIAN    SABBATH. 

The  tbird  theory  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  in 
the  order  in  which  we  have  been  considering  the 
different  theories,  affirms  that  the  Sabbath  was 
instituted  at  the  creation  of  man,  and  that  it  has 
never  been  abolished  or  superseded.  This  theory 
further  maintains  that  the  essential  idea  of  the 
law  of  the  Sabbath  is  not  the  holiness  of  any  par- 
ticular portion  of  time,  but  the  consecration  of 
a  specified  proportion  of  time,  viz.,  one  day  in 
seven;  that,  in  accordance  with  this  essential 
idea  of  the  Sabbath,  a  change  of  day  was  admis- 
sible ;  that  a  change  v/as  actually  made  by  di- 
vine warrant,  on  account  of,  and  dating  from,  the 
resurrection  of  Christ ;  and  that  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  the  Lord's  day,  is  the  true  Christian 
Sabbath,  having  its  moral  sanction  in  the  fourth 
commandment. 

Enough  has  already  been  written  in  these  col- 
umns, in  disproving  the  opposing  theories,  to 
show  that  this  theory  of  the  Sabbath  is  the  true 
one.  Two  things  being  admitted,  there  appears 
to  be  no  escape  from  this  theory.  Let  it  be  ad- 
mitted, first,  that  God  instituted  the  Sabbath  for 
all  mankind,  and  that  its  law  is  of  unchanging 
as  well  as  universal  application;  This  is  read- 
ily conceded  by  those  with  whom  we  are  now  in 
discussion.  Then,  in  the  second  place,  let  it  be 
admitted   that  the  inspired  apostles,  under  the 


352  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

guidance  of  Christ  and  liis  Spirit,  and  with  their 
manifest  approbation,  ceased  to  observe  the  sev- 
enth day,  and  actually  observed  the  first  day  of 
the  week.  This  our  opponents  are  very  loth  to 
admit.  But  the  testimony  given  by  us  at  con- 
siderable length  is  simply  overwhelming  and  in- 
controvertible. The  third  theory,  and  it  alone, 
harmonizes  the  immutable  law  of  the  Sabbath 
with  the  actual  change  of  day. 

In  further  confirmation  of  the  correctness  of 
this  theory,  it  remains  for  us,  in  concluding  this 
discussion,  to  show  that  this  third  theory  accords 
with  the  fourth  commandment,  and  meets  every 
aspect  of  the  design  of  the  institution  of  the  Sab- 
bath. 

The  principal  feature  of  the  design  of  the  Sab- 
bath is  the  setting  forth  of  God's  sovereign  con- 
trol, as  creator,  of  man  and  the  time  of  man,  as 
God's  creature.  Called  into  being  by  the  Creator, 
and  made  lord  over  the  irrational  and  material 
creation,  man  was  taught  that  his  time  was  to  be 
used  for  God's  honor.  It  was  a  trust  from  the 
Creator ;  and  that  man  mio-ht  not  foro^et  this,  one- 
seventh  of  the  time  in  regular  recurrence  was 
marked  out  to  be  consecrated  specially  to  the 
Lord  of  all.  This  is  the  very  idea  in  the  com- 
memoration of  the  work  of  creation.  It  is  to  keep 
alive  the  knowledge  of  God  as  the  Creator  and 
Sovereign  Ruler  of  man.  To  commemorate  the 
creation,  is  to  keep  before  the  mind,  week  by 
week,  the  duty  of  using  our  time  for  the  honor  of 
the  Author  and  Upholder  of  our  being. 

Nor  is  the  example  of  God's  resting  the  seventh 
day  made  insignificant  by  this  theory  of  the 
Christian  Sabbath.  "  In  six  days  God  made  the 
heavens  and  the  earth,  and  rested   the  seventh 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  353 

day."  God's  people  in  different  parts  of  the 
world  do  and  must  begin  their  work  at  different 
times,  and  j^et  in  each  locality  they  labor  six 
days  and  rest  the  seventh.  It  is  the  proportion 
of  time  which  is  the  law  of  the  commandment, 
enforced  by  the  divine  example ;  and  hence  the 
Christian  Sabbath,  in  the  true  import  of  the  com- 
mandment, is  as  really  the  seventh  day  as  the 
Jewish  Sabbath.  The  Christian  labors  six  days, 
and  not  the  seventh,  according  to  the  divine  ex- 
ample and  the  divine  command. 

In  this  wa}^,  also,  the  true  theory  of  the  Chris- 
tian Sabbath  meets  the  design  of  the  institution 
as  it  was  intended  to  arrest  the  current  of  the 
outward  life  and  lead  up  the  soul  to  unseen  and 
eternal  verities.  And  here  there  is  a  most  im- 
portant argument  for  the  change  of  the  clay  for 
Sabbath  observance.  It  is  most  reasonable  to  be- 
lieve that,  if  there  be  any  work  which  more  glo- 
riously manifests  the  perfections  of  God,  and 
serves  better  to  turn  the  thoughts  of  men  to 
things  above,  than  the  v/ork  of  creation,  the  day 
which  commemorates  such  a  work  would  be  the 
appropriate  time  for  Sabbath  observance. 

So  far  as  the  essential  idea  of  the  Sabbath  con- 
nects itself  with  a  particular  day,  the  argument 
is  of  great  weight  in  favor  of  a  change  from  the 
seventh  to  the  first  day  of  the  week.  The  week- 
ly division  is  the  main  thing,  let  the  week  begin 
when  it  may.  It  may  begin  on  what  we  now 
call  the  third,  or  fourth,  or  any  other,  day.  It  will 
matter  little.  But  as  the  first  day,  in  our  enu- 
meration of  the  days,  will  always  bring  to  mind 
the  great  work  of  redemption,  accomplished  by 
the  Saviour,  who  on  the  first  day  of  the  week 

Con.  Am.  2*)  P. 


354  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

rose  from  the  dead,  the  observance  of  this  day 
as  the  Sabbath  best  answers  one  of  the  principal 
designs   of  that  institution. 

And  then,  how  fittingly  does  the  observance  of 
the  first  day,  the  day  of  the  Lord's  resurrection, 
correspond  to  the  design  of  the  Sabbath  as  a  fore- 
taste of  the  heavenly  rest — the  Sahhatismos  or 
Sabbath-keeping  that  remains  for  the  people  of 
God.  Rejoicing  here  on  the  Christian  Sabbath 
in  what  our  Redeemer  has  done  for  us,  we  look 
forward  with  joyful  anticipations  to  the  many 
mansions  which  he  has  gone  before  us  to  prepare, 
that  we  may  be  ''  forever  with  the  Lord." 

"Bright  shadows  of  true  rest;  some  shoots  of  bliss; 
Heaven  ouce  a  week  ; 
The  next  world's  gladness  prepossessed  in  this, 
A  day  to  seek 

Eternity  in  time ;  the  steps  by  which 

We  climb  above  all  ages ;  lamps  that  light 

Man  through  his  heap  of  dark  days  ;  and  the  rich 
And  full  redemption  of  the  whole  week's  flight. 

'The  milky  way  chalked  out  with  suns ;  a  clue 
That  guides  through  evening  hours ;  and  in  full  story 

A  taste  of  Heaven  on  earth  ;  a  pledge  and  cue 
Of  a  full  feast;  and  the  out-courts  of  glory.'  " 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  355 


A    KEJOINDEK. 


''THE   TRUE  THEORY  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  SABBATH. 

It  is  a  peculiarity  of  this  discussion  that  we 
are  prevented,  in  our  rejoinders,  from  anticipating 
the  positions  which  our  opponent  has  in  store  for 
lis.  Were  it  possible  to  proceed  upon  principles 
of  consistency,  in  debate,  and  conclude  that  he, 
having  adopted  such  and  such  views,  would  con- 
tinue to  maintain  them  steadily  for  the  future, 
there  would  be  a  sort  of  satisfaction  found  in 
preparing  material  to  be  employed  hereafter. 
But  we  have  learned,  by  actual  experience,  that 
in  this  debate  such  anticipatory  action  would  be 
labor  lost.  For  example :  In  the  last  reply, 
which  had  to  do  with  the  seventh-part-of-time 
theory,  we  had  intended  to  show  that,  were  it 
true,  and  that,  were  the  observance  of  one  day  in 
seven  all  that  is  now  required,  even  then  Sabba- 
tarians stood  upon  a  footing  as  safe  as  that  of 
their  opponents,  since  the  observance  of  the  sev- 
enth day  answered  to  the  keeping  of  one-seventh 
part  of  time,  equally  with  that  of  the  celebration 
of  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

Being  prevented  by  want  of  spafce  from  indulg- 
ing in  these  reflections,  we  laid  them  over  for 
another  week,  supposing  that  they  would  come 
in  play  equally  well  at  this  time.  Alas  !  what  a 
mistake  !     We  should  have  struck  when  the  iron 


356  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

was  hot.  Unfortunately,  we  are  not  now  con- 
fronting the  no-day-in-particular  doctrine,  as  we 
were  then ;  but  it  is  the  "  Lord's  day  "  again,  the 
first  day  of  an  indefinite  week,  "  a  particular,  def- 
inite day,  enforced  by  the  command  and  the  ex- 
ample of  Christ  and  the  apostles,"  which  once 
more  stands  before  us.  How  it  is  that  we  have 
been  borne  so  rapidly  over  the  space  which  sep- 
arates these  antagonistic  positions,  the  reader 
will  have  to  decide  for  himself;  for  we  confess 
to  a  perfect  want  of  ability,  on  our  own  part,  to 
render  him  any  assistance.  Without  the  slight- 
est attempt  at  logical  deduction,  we  are  first  in- 
formed that  the  essential  idea  in  Sabbath  observ- 
ance is  not  that  of  the  keeping  of  a  particular 
day,  but  the  consecration  of  one  day  in  the  week, 
allowing  the  week  to  begin  wherever  it  may. 
This,  v/e  are  told,  would  suitably  commemorate 
God's  rest  at  the  creation  of  the  world ;  and,  also, 
that  if,  in  addition,  we  make  the  day  of  our  rest 
identical  with  the  first  day  of  the  week,  we  can 
thereby  celebrate  both  creation  and  redemption. 
For  this  very  purpose,  we  are  informed,  the 
Sabbath  commandment  was  changed,  so  as  to 
admit  of  the  introduction  of  a  new  day. 

But  pause  a  moment.  Has  the  gentleman  told 
us  just  what  change  was  made  ?  Has  he  told 
us  what  words  were  stricken  out  ?  and  how  it 
now  reads  ?  The  reader  has  not  forgotten  that 
this  is  the  very  thing  the  opposition  were  chal- 
lenged to  perform.     He  will  perceive  that  this. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABKATH.  357 

also,  is  the  very  thinor  which  the  o^entleman  has 
failed  to  accomplish,  and  cannot  hereafter  do, 
since  the  reply  under  review  is  the  last  of  his 
series.  If  it  be  said  that  he  has  cited  us  to  the 
fourth  commandment,  as  given  in  the  twentieth 
of  Exodus,  as  containing  the  law  as  it  now  reads, 
then  he  is  self- condemned ;  for  he  admits  that 
the  phraseology  of  that  commandment  did  enforce 
a  definite  day,  and  that,  the  last  day  of  the  week. 

But  once  more :  Passing  over  the  absurdity  of 
claiming  a  change  in  the  law,  where  there  is  no 
ability  to  produce  the  statute  as  amended,  let  us 
go  back  from  Sinai  to  Eden,  along  with  the  gen- 
tleman, and  see  if  we  cannot  find,  independent  of 
the  commandment,  evidence  that  the  creation 
Sabbath  w^as  not  a  portable  institution,  to  be 
trundled  about  at  the  caprice  of  any  and  every 
individual.  Mark  it,  now,  it  is  granted  that 
what  is  called  the  Jewish  Sabbath  law  enforced 
the  keeping  of  the  seventh  day,  and  admitted  of 
no  other  as  a  substitute.  But  whence  is  this 
conclusion  drawn?  Undeniably,  from  the  words, 
"  The  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  th}^ 
God ;  in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work." 

But  where  has  the  gentleman  learned  that  the 
creation  Sabbath  was  enjoined  in  the  use  of  lan- 
guage less  explicit  and  limited  in  its  meaning 
than  are  the  words  of  the  decalogue  ?  If  he 
knows  anything  about  the  original  decree  of 
Jehovah,  and  the  limitations  with  which  he 
guarded  the  Sabbath  in  the  outset,  he,  like  our- 


358  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

selves;  is  compelled  to  go  to  the  sacred  record  for 
information.  If,  in  going  there,  he  has  been  able 
to  find  anything  which  would  prove  that  the 
Edenic  Sabbath  was  less  fixed  in  its  character 
than  that  of  Sinai,  then  he  has  made  some  prog- 
ress. The  only  scripture  which  w^ill  throw  any 
light  upon  the  subject  will  be  found  in  Gen. 
2  : 1-3. 

Unhappily  for  the  gentleman,  however,  it  is 
fatal  to  his  conception  that  the  original  Sabbath 
varied  in  any  way  from  that  of  the  Jews — so- 
called.  In  the  account  of  its  institution,  the  lan- 
guage employed  is  almost  precisely  the  same 
with  that  subsequently  traced  upon  the  tables  of 
stone.  It  is  there  declared  that  God  sanctified 
(i.  G.,  set  apart  to  a  holy  use)  the  seventh  day. 
The  reason  for  this  action  is  the  fact  that  he  had 
rested  upon  it.  Now,  it  will  be  observed  that  it 
was  the  "seventh  day"  that  God  blessed  and 
sanctified,  and  no  other.  It  is  submitted,  there- 
fore, as  the  gentleman  concedes,  that  the  same 
expression  {i.  e.,  the  seventh  day),  when  em- 
ployed in  the  commandment  given  to  Moses,  did 
locate  the  Sabbath  institution  immovably  upon 
the  last  day  of  the  week,  until  the  law  was 
changed;  that  the  same  language,  when  employed 
originally,  must  have  produced  the  same  result ; 
in  other  words,  if  the  command  to  keep  the  sev- 
enth day,  as  given  on  Mount  Sinai,  held  the 
people  strictly  to  the  observance  of  the  last  day 
of  the  week,  so,  too,  Jehovah,  in  the  beginning. 


SUNDAY    AND    TUE    SABBATH.  359 

restricted  the  whole  race  to  a  Sabbath  which  was, 
equally  with  the  other,  the  seventh,  and,  there- 
fore, the  last  day  of  the  week. 

In  order  to  avoid  this  conclusion,  it  will  be  re- 
quired that,  by  some  means,  he  should  be  able  to 
show  that  the  same  terms  which  were  employed 
by  God,  at  one  time,  have  a  different  meaning 
from  that  attached  to  them,  as  employed  by  him 
at  another  time.  Not  only  so,  the  Sabbath  in 
Genesis,  like  that  in  Exodus,  is  further  limited 
and  defined  by  two  additional  facts.  First,  it 
was  the  day  on  which  God  rested ;  secondly,  it 
was  the  day  which  he  blessed  because  he  had 
rested  upon  it.  Therefore,  before  any  other  day 
could  be  substituted  for  it,  these  two  things  must 
be  true  of  it,  as  matter  of  history.  This,  how- 
ever, can  never  be  the  case,  as  it  regards  any  day 
of  the  week,  save  the  last ;  consequently,  he  who 
celebrates  any  other  is  not  celebrating  the  one 
w^hich  God  imposed  in  the  beginning.  So  much 
for  the  definiteness  of  the  Sabbath  which  was 
given  to  Adam. 

Should  it  be  replied  that  what  has  been  re- 
marked is  con-ect,  and  that  it  is  not  argued  that 
any  one  was  at  liberty  to  keep  any  other  day 
than  the  seventh  of  the  week,  until  Christ 
changed  the  law,  and  thereby  authorized  them 
so  to  do,  we  reply.  Very  good ;  that  brings  us 
back  again  to  the  original  proposition,  which  is. 
Did  he  make  such  a  change  ?  If  he  did,  then  it 
is  just  as  important  that  we  should  have  clear 


3G0  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

and  conclusive  evidence  that  such  an  alteration 
was  made  by  him,  as  it  is  that  we  should  have 
the  abundant  testimony  which  we  now  possess 
that  a  definite  Sabbath  was  originally  given  to 
mankind. 

All  this  speculation  in  regard  to  what  might 
have  been  done  with  perfect  consistency  under  a 
given  state  of  facts  is  worse  than  idle.  What  we 
demand  is  this — What  has  been  done  ?  Instead 
of  concluding  that  Christ  did  a  certain  thing 
because  it  would  have  been  right  so  to  do,  first 
show  us,  by  actual  Scripture  quotation,  that  he 
really  performed  the  work  in  question,  and  the 
consistency  of  his  action  will  take  care  of  itself. 
A  theology  which  has  no  broader,  firmer  basis 
than  individual  conception  of  the  propriety  of 
certain  occurrences  which  may  never  have  taken 
place  at  all,  is  not  worth  the  paper  on  which  it  is 
drawn  out.  This,  nevertheless,  is  the  very  ma- 
terial with  which  we  are  dealing. 

Eleven  articles,  ostensibly  written  to  afford  di- 
vine authority  for  the  change  of  da3^s,  are  con- 
cluded ;  and,  from  beginning  to  end,  there  is  not 
found  in  them  a  ''■  Thus  saitli  the  Lord  "  for  the 
transfer.  Asrain  and  acrain  it  is  inferred  that  such 
and  such  transactions  meant  so-and-so.  Again 
and  again  it  is  concluded  that  such  and  such 
things  are  admissible,  not  because  of  any  script- 
ui-al  warrant,  but  because  they  seem  good  in  the 
eyes  of  those  with  whose  practice  they  best  con- 
form.    The  reason  why  this  is  so,  the  reader  will 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  361 

readily  perceive.  It  is  found,  not  in  the  fact  that 
the  learned  gentleman  who  represents  tlie  oppo- 
sition is  insensible  to  the  superiority  of  positive 
Bible  statements  over  individual  surmise,  but  in 
the  necessity  under  which  he  is  placed,  to  em- 
plo}^  the  only  material  which  he  has  at  hand. 
Meeting  him,  therefore,  where  he  is,  let  us  prove 
the  unreliability  of  such  deductions  as  he  is  in- 
dulging in  by  actual  test.  The  points  which  he 
is  attempting  to  establish  are  these  :  1.  The  orig- 
inal idea  of  the  Sabbath  can  be  met  by  the  ob- 
servance of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  as  well  as 
by  that  of  the  last.  2.  That  the  commemoration 
of  Christ's  resurrection  can  only  be  suitably  car- 
ried out  by  hallowing  the  first  day  of  every  week. 
Now,  as  to  the  first  of  these  propositions,  it 
will  only  be  safe  to  decide  that  it  is  correct  after 
giving  it  mature  reflection.  We  have  already 
seen  that  God's  original  plan  for  preserving  the 
memory  of  creation  week  was  that  of  setting 
apart  the  last  day  of  each  subsequent  week  for 
the  imitation,  on  our  part,  of  his  rest  thereon. 
To  say,  therefore,  that  it  would  have  answered 
just  as  v*^ell  to  allow  the  individual  to  take  any 
other  day — say  the  first  day  of  the  week — for 
this  purpose,  is  to  argue  that  God  acted  without 
cause  in  making  the  selection  which  he  did  and 
enforcing  it  for  four  thousand  years.  If  the  ques- 
tion were  one  of  indifference,  why  did  he  not 
leave  the  day  unfixed  ?  Why  not  allow  them 
then  to  commemorate  his  rest  on  the  first  day. 


362  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

as  the  gentleman  would  'have  done  now,  arguing 
that  the  ends  of  the  original  Sabbath  would,  in 
this  way,  be  fully  met.  Certain  it  is  that  no 
good  reason  can  be  assigned  why  it  would  now 
be  more  proper  to  commemorate  the  rest  of  Je- 
hovah by  a  variable  Sabbath  than  it  has  been 
heretofore.  This  being  true,  the  gentleman's 
logic  is  found  to  be  unsound,  or  else  the  action  of 
the  Deity  was  inconsiderate. 

Turning,  now,  to  the  second  proposition,  the 
reader  will  be  instantly  struck  witli  its  unquali- 
fied antagonism  to  the  first  point  which  is  sought 
to  be  made  out. 

Remember,  now,  that  the  fj^entleman  is  aro^uinor 
stoutly  for  first-day  sanctity.  He  is  not  so  par- 
ticular when  the  week  begins,  but  it  must  have 
just  seven  days,  and  the  fh'st  of  them  must  be 
devoted  to  the  commemoration  of  the  Lord's  res- 
urrection. Should  you  ask  him  why  he  is  thus 
particular  in  the  selection  of  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  he  would  reply,  "Why,  that  is  the  day  on 
which  the  Lord  arose,  and  it  is  his  resurrection, 
as  the  crowning  act  in  the  work  of  redemption, 
which  we  seek  to  honor."  But,  reader,  would  it 
not  occur  to  you,  immediately,  that  this  is  a  re- 
pudiation of  all  which  he  has  said  concerning  the 
Edenic  Sabbath  ?  Now,  mark  it ;  what  God  de- 
mands, is,  that  we  should  honor  the  seventh  day 
of  the  week,  as  the  one  which  he  rested  upon, 
blessed,  and  sanctified.  If,  therefore,  the  rest, 
the  blessing,  and  the  sanctification  of  that  day 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  363 

can  be  suitably  remembered  by  the  observance 
of  another  day  differing  from  it,  then  the  as- 
sumption that  an  event  is  most  impressively 
lianded  do^vn  by  the  dedication,  for  this  purpose, 
of  the  very  day  on  wliich  it  transpired,  is  un- 
sound. 

But  if  this  assumption  be  unsound,  then  all  of 
the  gentleman's  talk  in  regard  to  the  necessity 
for  a  change  of  days,  in  order  to  the  suitable 
commemoration  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ  and 
the  completion  of  the  work  of  redemption,  is 
without  force.  For,  assuredly,  if  he  is  right  in 
supposing  that  God's  rest  in  Eden,  on  the  sev- 
enth day,  can  be  commemorated  as  well  on  the 
first  day  as  on  the  seventh,  then  the  same  princi- 
ple will  hold  good  in  regard  to  the  events  which 
transpired  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  i.  e.,  they 
can  be  kept  in  remembrance  by  the  hallowing  of 
the  seventh  day  as  well  as  by  that  of  the  first. 
But  this  beinor  true,  his  arojument  for  the  neces- 
sity  of  the  change  of  Sabbaths  is  gone,  and  his 
philosophy  of  the  change  proved  to  be  unsound. 
The  only  purpose  which  it  has  served  in  this 
controversy  has  been  the  revelation  of  that  which 
is  really  the  conviction  of  its  author,  as  it  is  that 
of  men  generally,  that  there  is  no  time  in  which 
great  transactions  can  be  so  suitably  commemo- 
rated as  that  of  the  day  on  which  they  took  place. 
When  the  nation  wishes  to  celebrate  the  anni- 
versary of  its  independence,  it  sets  apart  for  this 
purpose  the  fourth  of  July,  which  answers  ex- 


3G4  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

actly  to  the  day  of  the  month  on  which  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence  was  made.  Substitute 
for  this  another  day,  and  you  have  marred  the 
impressiveness  of  the  occasion. 

So,  too,  with  God's  rest  on  creation  week ;  it 
must  be  so  celebrated  that  all  the  associations 
connected  with  it  will  be  calculated  to  lead  the 
mind  back  to  its  origin  and  object.  Turn  it 
around,  as  the  gentleman  proposes  to  do,  i.  e., 
substitute  the  first  day  of  the  week  in  the  place 
of  the  last,  and  you  have  precisely  reversed  God's 
order.  You  have  put  the  rest-day  first,  and 
cause  the  six  laboring  days  to  follow ;  whereas, 
God,  knowing  that  rest  was  only  needed  after 
labor,  worked  six  days  and  then  rested  the  sev- 
enth, not  because  he  was  weary,  but  because  he 
desired  to  put  on  the  record  for  us  an  example  to 
be  strictly  followed.  The  gentleman,  however, 
without  the  slightest  warrant,  has,  with  a  rash 
hand,  laid  hold  of  the  divine  procedure,  and  now 
says  that  the  order  pursued  was  not  necessary  to 
the  inculcation  of  the  great  lessons  which  God 
designed  to  impart. 

To  this,  I  reply,  1.  That  God's  actions  are  never 
superfluous.  2.  That,  if  Ave  err  at  all,  it  is  safer 
to  err  on  the  side  of  the  divine  example.  3. 
That  if  the  idea  of  God's  working  six  days  is  in 
any  way  connected  with  a  proper  Sabbath  rest, 
then  it  is  indispensable  that  the  Sabbath  should 
folio v»^,  and  not  precede,  the  working  portion  of 
the  week.     4.  That  if  the  rest  of  God,  merely,  is 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  365 

the  object  which  we  should  keep  before  our  minds 
by  a  proper  regard  for  the  Sabbatic  institution, 
the  gentleman  has  himself  shown,  by  the  logic 
which  he  has  employed,  that  the  only  suitable 
period  for  the  keeping  of  that  rest  is  found  in 
that  portion  of  the  week  on  which  God  ceased 
from  his  labors. 

The  remark  of  the  gentleman  that  the  worlv  of 
redemption  furnishes  a  subject  worthy  of  being 
remembered  by  observance  with  Sabbatic  honor 
of  the  day  on  which  it  wa.s  completed,  is  worthy 
of  passing  notice.  The  idea  which  he  advances 
is  one  which  is  quite  prevalent,  and  employed 
with  great  satisfaction  by  clergymen  generally, 
when  controverting  the  claims  of  God's  ancient 
rest-day.  The  strength  of  the  position  lies  in 
the  fact  that  it  distinguishes  between  redemption 
and  creation,  assuming,  perhaps  correctly,  that 
the  latter  is  more  exalted  than  the  former.  Hav- 
ing won  the  assent  of  the  mind  to  this  proposi- 
tion, the  reader  is  quietly  carried  over  to  conclu- 
sions much  less  obvious  than  the  first.  Almost 
unconsciously  he  is  led  to  decide,  with  his  in- 
structor, that,  since  redemption  is  a  greater  work 
than  creation,  it  ought,  therefore,  to  be  honored 
by  a  day  of  rest. 

Now  we  shall  not  enter  into  this  matter  largely, 
but  we  simply  suggest  that  either  this  decision  is 
the  result  of  human,  or  else  it  is  the  product  of 
divine,  wisdom.  If  it  is  human  wisdom,  then  its 
teachings  should  be  followed  with  extreme  cau- 


36G  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

tion.  If  it  is  divine  wisdom,  then  they  can  be 
obeyed  with  the  most  implicit  confidence.  Just 
at  this  point,  therefore,  it  is  all-important  that 
the  test  be  applied.  Has  Jehovah  ever  said  that 
the  commemoration  of  creation  week  had  become 
less  desirable  on  account  of  the  possible  redemp- 
tion of  a  fallen  race,  by  the  death  of  his  Son  ? 
The  most  careful  reader  of  the  Bible  has  failed  to 
find  any  such  language ;  in  fine,  the  intimation 
that  such  is  really  the  fact  is  rather  a  reflection 
upon  the  Deity  himself,  since,  from  it,  it  might 
be  inferred  that  the  glory  of  his  work  had  been 
dimmed  by  the  fall  of  the  race. 

But,  again,  if  the  Lord  has  not  said  that  he 
would  not  have  the  memory  of  creation  cherished 
still,  has  he  ever  said  that  he  would  have  the 
work  of  redemption  signalized  by  a  weekly  rest  ? 
Once  more  the  student  of  the  Scriptures  unhesi- 
tatingly answers  in  the  negative ;  but  if  God  has 
failed  to  make  this  declaration,  who  shall  presume 
to  put  words  in  his  mouth,  and  read  the  thoughts 
of  his  mind,  as  tliose  having  authority  so  to  do  ? 
The  man  who  will  undertake  to  do  it  is  venturing 
upon  ground  which  lies  hard  by  that  of  blasphemy. 
God  never  neglects  to  say  that  which  ought  to  be 
said ;  he  never  calls  upon  any  man  to  go  beyond 
his  commandments,  for  in  them,  says  Solomon 
(Eccl.  12  :  13),  is  found  the  whole  duty  of  man. 

Furthermore,  were  we  to  reason  upon  this 
matter  at  all,  every  consideration  would  lead  us 
to  the  conclusion  that  the  inference  of  our  oppo- 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  367 

nents  is  not  correct.  In  the  first  place,  redemp- 
tion is  not  yet  fully  completed  in  tlie  case  of  any 
individual.  In  the  second  place,  the  Scripture 
says  we  have  (are  to  have)  redemption  through 
his  hlood  (Col.  1:14).  But  his  blood,  it  is  gener- 
ally supposed,  was  shed  upon  Friday,  and,  there- 
fore, it  is  not  impossible  that  the  hallowing  of 
that  day  would  more  suitably  commemorate  re- 
demption than  that  of  any  other  day.  In  the 
third  place,  it  was  proved  at  length  in  a  former 
article,  that  if  creation  was  suitably  commemo- 
rated by  a  day  of  rest,  redemption,  which  is  an 
event  entirely  opposite  in  its  character,  would 
naturally  be  celebrated  by  some  institution  of  an 
entirely  different  nature.  In  other  words,  the 
Sabbath  inculcates  cessation  from  labor  by  the 
indulgence  of  inaction,  while  all  the  events  con- 
nected with  the  resurrection  of  Christ  rendered 
inactivity  impossible. 

But  finally,  we  are  not  left,  in  a  matter  of  this 
significance,  to  the  unreliable  decisions  of  the  hu- 
man mind.  Not  only  is  it  true  that  God  has 
never  appointed  a  day  of  septenary  inactivity,  as 
the  Heaven- chosen  memorial  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  divine  Son  of  God ;  but  it  is  also  true  that 
God  himself,  in  the  exercise  of  a  wisdom  which 
will  hardly  be  impugned  by  finite  beings,  has  se- 
lected an  institution  entirely  different  from  that 
under  -consideration  for  the  illustration  of  that 
phase  of  the  work  of  redemption  which  was  seen 
in  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 


368  CONSTITUTIONAL   A3IENDMENT. 

Says  the  great  apostle  to  the  Gentiles :  "  There- 
fore we  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death  ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the 
dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also 
should  walk  in  newness  of  life.  For  if  we  liave 
been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death, 
we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrec- 
tion." Rom.  6  : 4,  5.  "  Buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism, wherein  also  we  are  risen  with  him  through 
the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised 
him  from  the  dead."     Col.  2:12. 

Baptism,  that  is,  Bible  baptism,  or  the  immer- 
sion of  the  individual  beneath  the  water,  most 
forcibly  commemorates  the  death  of  our  Lord. 
As  the  administrator  lowers  the  body  of  the  pas- 
sive subject  beneath  the  yielding  wave,  by  the 
very  necessity  of  the  case,  breathing  is,  for  the 
time,  suspended,  and  the  person,  as  nearly  as  may 
be  while  in  life,  as  he  lies  motionless  in  the  hands 
of  the  individual  to  whom  he  has  committed  him- 
self in  the  exercise  of  an  act  of  faith,  shadows 
forth  the  death  and  burial  of  his  Lord  in  a  most 
impressive  manner.  As  he  rises,  also,  from  that 
position,  and,  proceeding  to  the  shore,  unites  once 
more  with  the  throng  of  living  beings  who  sur- 
round him,  he  most  forcibly  illustrates  the  com- 
incr  back  asfain  of  our  Lord  from  death  and  the 
grave  to  a  life  of  infinite  activity  and  glory. 

All,  therefore,  which  is  necessary  in  order  to 
the  remembering,  by  outward  expression,  of  that 
most  glorious  event,  which  gave  back  to  the  dis- 


SUNDAY   AND    THE    SABBATH.  369 

ciples,  from  the  nations  of  tlie  dead,  the  body  of 
the  beloved  Master,  is  that  we  go  forward  in  the 
fulfillment  of  an  ordinance  w^hich  has  been  pro- 
vided for  that  purpose,  and  which  sets  forth  the 
events  which  are  thought  worthy  of  a  memento 
in  a  manner  as  superior  to  that  in  which  it  could 
be  done  by  mere  inaction,  as  God's  conception  of 
wliat  would  be  suitable  under  such  circumstances 
is  higher  than  that  of  man.  The  wonder  is  that 
any  one  should  have  lost  sight  of  the  oiiginal  de- 
sign of  an  institution  which  is  remarkably  ex- 
pressive of  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  created. 
In  fact,  had  not  the  same  power  which  has  changed 
the  Sabbath  also  tampered  with  the  ordinance  of 
baptism  by  changing  the  original  form  into  one 
less  expressive  of  its  historic  associations,  we  be- 
lieve that  the  view  which  is  now  passing  under 
consideration  never  could  have  suggested  itself 
to  any  mind. 

But,  reader,  it  is  now  time  that  our  labor 
should  be  drawn  to  a  close.  In  the  providence 
of  God,  we  have  walked  together  over  the  terri- 
tory devoted  to  the  great  and  important  Sabbath 
question.  With  pleasure,  we  are  about  to  lay 
down  our  pen  for  the  last  time,  and  submit  the 
whole  matter  to  you  for  the  pronouncing  of  the 
final  verdict  of  your  individual  judgment.  As  we 
do  so,  it  is  with  feelings  of  most  profound  grati- 
tude to  God  for  a  truth  which,  wliile  there  is  un- 
derlying it  a  cross  so  heavy  that  it  cannot  be  lift- 


370  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

ed  by  human  strength  unaided,  is,  nevertheless,  so 
plain  that  its  mere  statement  is  its  most  complete 
demonstration.  Were  it  not  true  that  society  is 
at  present  so  organized  that  the  keeping  of  the 
seventh  day  involves  social,  political,  and  pecun- 
iary sacrifice,  much  greater  than  he  is  aware  of 
who  has  not  considered  the  matter,  we  would 
not  hesitate  to  say  that  a  complete  and  speedy 
revolution  could  be  wrought  upon  this  subject  in 
a  brief  space  of  time.  Never,  in  the  history  of 
any  reformation  which  has  heretofore  occurred, 
were  men  covered  with  a  more  complete  panoply 
of  defense,  and  armed  with  more  destructive  weap- 
ons of  offense,  than  are  God's  commandment- 
keeping  people  at  the  present  period.  The  only 
mystery  connected  with  the  subject  is,  that,  being 
as  plain  as  it  is,  the  fact  of  the  change  should  not 
have  attracted  universal  attention  before. 

Traversing  again  the  ground  over  which  we 
have  come  Avith  the  gentleman  who  has  managed 
the  opposition  in  this  debate,  the  poverty  of  his  re- 
sources is  most  striking.  In  all  that  he  has  said, 
he  has  proved  nothing  which  has  in  any  way  re- 
lieved his  case,  nor  can  his  failure  be  attributed 
to  any  lack  of  capacity  on  his  part.  In  the  hand- 
ling of  the  material  with  which  he  has  had  to  do, 
he  has  displayed  not  a  little  ingenuity.  The  ar- 
guments which  he  has  employed  and  the  posi- 
tions which  he  has  taken  are  those  of  the  ortho- 
dox ministry  generally  at  the  present  time.  His 
failure  is  entirely  attributable  to  the  natural  weak- 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  371 

ness  of  the  position  wliich  he  has  sought  to  de- 
fend. His  was  indeed  a  hard  task.  He  felt  the 
moral  necessity  of  a  Sabbath,  as  a  Christian  man ; 
and,  finding  the  religious  world  keeping  the  first 
day  of  the  week,  he  sought  to  defend  this  prac- 
tice from  the  Bible  stand-point.  But,  alas  for  his 
cause  I  The  more  he  has  appealed  to  this  source, 
the  more  certain  has  it  become  that  the  Bible,  and 
the  usages  of  Christendom  in  this  matter,  can  nev- 
er be  harmonized.  In  its  pages  we  find  the  most 
ample  authority  for  a  day  of  rest,  but  none  for  the 
one  which  is  generally  honored  as  such.  The 
record  in  brief  stands  as  follows : — 

1.  There  is  a  Sabbath. 

2.  That  Sabbath  is  the  seventh,  and  not  the 
first,  day  of  tlie  week,  for  the  following  reasons : — 

(1.)  In  the  beginning  God  rested  on  the  sev- 
enth day,  thereby  laying  the  foundation  for  its 
Sabbatic  honor  (Gen.  2:3);  whereas,  lie  never 
rested  upon  the  first  day. 

(2.)  He  blessed  the  seventh  day ;  whereas,  he 
never  blessed  the  first  day. 

(3.)  He  sanctified  the  seventh  day,  or  devoted 
it  to  a  religious  use ;  whereas,  he  never  sanctified 
the  first  day. 

(4.)  The  day  of  his  rest,  his  blessing,  and  his 
sanctification,  he  commanded  to  be  kept  holy,  in 
a  law  of  perpetual  obligation ;  whereas,  he  never 
commanded  the  observance  of  the  first  day. 

(5.)  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  recognized  the  ob- 
ligation of  the  seventh  day  by  a  life-long  custom 


372  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

of  observing  it  (Luke  4:16);  whereas,  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  never  rested  upon  the  first  day  of 
the  week ;  but  always  treated  it  as  a  secular  day. 

(G.)  He  also  recognized  its  perpetuity  forty 
years  after  his  death,  when  speaking  of  events 
connected  with  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  by 
instructing  his  disciples  to  pray  that  their  flight 
might  not  occur  thereon  (Matt.  24  :  20) ;  whereas, 
he  never  spoke  of  the  first  day  as  one  to  be  hon- 
ored in  the  future,  nor,  indeed,  so  far  as  we  know, 
did  he  ever  take  it  upon  his  lips  at  all. 

(7.)  It  is  the  day  which  the  holy  women  kept, 
according  to  the  commandment,  after  the  cruci- 
fixion of  our  Lord  (Luke  23  :  56) ;  whereas,  there 
is  no  account  that  any  good  man  has  ever  rested 
upon  the  first  day  out  of  regard  for  its  sanctity. 

(8.)  It  is  the  day  on  which  Paul,  as  his  manner 
was,  taught  in  the  synagogue  (Acts  17  : 2);  where- 
as, Paul  never  made  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
habitually,  one  of  public  teaching,  a  thing  which 
he  v/ould  have  been  sure  to  do  had  he  looked  up- 
on it  as  sacred  to  the  Lord. 

(9.)  Being  mentioned  fifty-six  times  in  the 
New  Testament,  it  is  in  all  these  instances  called 
the  Sabbath ;  whereas,  the  first  day  is  mentioned 
eight  times  in  tlie  New  Testament,  and  in  every 
case  it  is  called,  simply,  the  first  day  of  tlie  week. 

(10.)  In  the  year  of  our  Lord  95,  it  is  spoken 
of  by  John  as  the  Lord's  day  (Rev.  1:10);  where- 
as, the  first  day  is  in  no  case  mentioned  in  the 
use  of  a  sacred  title. 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  373 

(11.)  It  is  mentioned  not  only  as  the  Sabbath, 
but  it  is  also  spoken  of  as  the  next  Sabbath,  and 
every  Sabbath,  thus  proving  that  it  had  no  rival 
(Acts  13:4;  15  :  21) ;  whereas,  the  day  before  the 
first,  and  the  sixth  day  after  it,  being  spoken  of 
as  the  Sabbath,  it  (i.  e.,  the  first  day,)  is  classed 
with  the  other  days  of  the  week. 

(12.)  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and,  in  fine, 
in  the  whole  canon  of  the  New  Testament,  there 
is  not  a  single  transaction  which  is  related  as 
having  occurred  upon  the  seventh  day  in  the 
least  incompatible  with  the  notion  that  it  con- 
tinued to  be  regarded  as  holy  time,  while  the  law 
which  enforces  its  observance  is  inculcated  in  the 
clearest  and  most  emphatic  terms  (Matt.  5  :  17- 
19  ;  Rom.  3  :  31 ;  Jas.  2  :  8-12) ;  w^hereas,  the  first 
day  w^as  one  on  which  Christ  indulged  in  travel 
on  the  highway  in  company  with  others,  after 
his  resurrection,  without  informing  them  of  its 
character  or  rebuking  them  for  sin.  It  is  also  a 
day  on  which  two  of  the  disciples  walked  the 
distance  of  fifteen  miles  on  one  occasion,  while  on 
another,  Paul  performed  the  journe}^  of  nineteen 
and  one-half  miles  on  foot,  while  Luke  and  seven 
companions  worked  the  vessel  around  the  head- 
land for  a  much  greater  dist?aice  (Luke  24 :  13, 
29  ;  Acts  20  : 1-13.) 

In  view  of  tlie  above,  the  whole  question  of 
obligation  may  be  summed  up  in  the  following 
words  :  Shall  we  keep  a  day  which  God  has  com- 
manded,  which    Christ   inculcated,   and   v/'hich 


374  CONSTITUTIONAL    AMENDMENT. 

holy  men  regarded  from  the  opening  until  the 
close  of  the  canon  of  Scripture  ?  or  shall  we  dis- 
regard that,  putting  in  its  place  one  which  neither 
God,  nor  Christ,  nor  a  holy  angel,  nor  an  inspired 
man,  ever,  anywhere,  under  any  circumstances, 
enjoined,  and  which,  in  addition,  God  and  Christ, 
and  holy  men  and  women,  are  everywhere  in  the 
sacred  word  brouo^ht  to  view  as  treatinor  in  a 
manner  such  as  they  would  only  treat  a  day  of 
secular  character  ? 

In  fine,  it  is  simply  the  same  old  test  applied 
once  more  to  human  action,  which  has  in  all  ages 
been  the  measure  of  moral  character,  i.  e.,  Shall 
we  obey  God  ?  or  shall  we  not  ?  Shall  we  grat- 
ify our  own  inclination  and  have  our  own  way 
by  pertinaciously  persisting  in  a  course  of  action 
for  which  we  have  no  Scripture  warrant  ?  or 
shall  we  take  the  Bible  in  one  hand  and,  accept- 
ing its  doctrines  as  the  words  of  life,  follow  them 
to  their  legitimate  consequences  in  our  daily 
walk  ?  Says  John,  "  This  is  the  love  of  God, 
that  ye  keep  his  commandments."  Says  James, 
"  Show  me  your  faith  without  works,  and  I  will 
show  you  my  faith  by  my  works." 

Sublime  sentiments,  indeed !  In  them  is  ex- 
pressed the  moving,  controlling  principle  of  every 
Christian  heart.  Oh  1  that  all  men  in  the  ages 
of  the  past  had  held  to  the  noble  purpose  of  tak- 
ing God  at  his  word,  believing  that  he  meant 
just  what  he  said,  and  walking  out  with  a  noble 
courage  upon  their  confidence  in  his  wisdom  to 


SUNDAY    AND    THE    SABBATH.  375 

legislate,  and  his  right  to  command.  Had  they 
done  so ;  had  they  been  willing  to  be  taught  in- 
stead of  going  uninstructed ;  had  they  submitted 
to  be  led  instead  of  insisting  upon  independent 
action,  how  much  misery  would  have  been  spared 
our  kind !  Take,  for  example,  the  case  of  Eve — 
God  exempted  one  tree  in  the  garden  from  the 
rest,  saying,  "  Thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it ;  for  in  the 
day  that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely 
die."  Unhappily,  the  mother  of  all  living  ven- 
tured to  deviate  from  the  command  of  God  in 
what  appeared  to  her  an  unimportant  particular, 
and,  as  the  result,  a  race  was  plunged  into  the 
terrible  consequences  of  rebellion. 

It  would  seem  as  if  this  should  have  been 
enough  to  teach  all,  that  it  is  only  safe  to  do  just 
what  God  requires  in  small,  as  well  as  great, 
things.  Alas !  however,  this  has  not  been  the 
case.  Nadab  and  Abihu,  with  the  example  of 
Eve  before  them,  contrary  to  the  directions  of  the 
Lord,  ventu.red  to  substitute  natui-al  fire  for  the 
hallowed  fire  of  the  altar.  To  them,  there  was 
no  apparent  difference;  but  in  a  moment  the 
curse  of  God  fell  upon  them  and  they  were  borne 
lifeless,  and  without  the  honors  of  an  ordinary 
funeral  service,  away  from  the  camp  of  Israel. 
Uzzah,  despising  the  commandment  of  the  Lord, 
by  which  the  Levites  alone  were  to  touch  the 
ark,  in  an  unguarded  moment,  reached  out  his 
hand  to  steady  it,  and  God  made  a  breach  upon 
him  in  the  presence  of  the  people.     Uzzah  fell 


376  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

lifeless  before  the  ark  wliich  contained  the  same 
law  which  is  under  consideration.  It  was  not 
the  ark  that  sanctified  the  law ;  but,  rather,  the 
law  that  sanctified  the  ark. 

If,  therefore,  God  was  so  jealous  of  that  which 
was  merely  the  vehicle  of  the  ten  words  spoken 
by  his  voice  and  \yritten  by  his  finger,  how  must 
he  feel  in  regard  to  those  words  themselves  ?  In 
them,  is  found  the  embodiment  of  the  whole  duty 
of  man.  With  them,  God  now  tests,  as  he  has 
always  tested,  the  characters  of  men.  "Know 
ye  not,"  says  Paul,  "  his  servants  ye  are  to  whom 
ye  obey ;  whether  of  sin  unto  death,  or  of  obedi- 
ence unto  righteousness  V 

True,  it  may  be,  that  v/e  can  transgress  that 
law  at  the  present  time  without  suftering  the 
visible  displeasure  of  God,  as  did  those  whom,  in 
the  past,  he  set  forth  as  examples  of  his  wrath. 
But  let  us  not  deceive  ourselves  on  this  account ; 
God  is  no  respecter  of  persons.  Moral  character 
is  what  he  admires,  exact  obedience  is  what  he 
demands.  In  his  providence,  at  the  present 
time,  it  is  our  fortune  to  live  in  an  epoch  when 
great  light  is  shining  upon  the  long  dishon- 
ored and  mutilated  Sabbath  commandment.  A 
worldly  church,  having  departed  from  the  sim- 
plicity of  gospel  teaching  and  gospel  method  for 
the  propagation  of  truth,  has  called  to  her  aid 
the  elements  of  force  and  the  appliances  of  law. 
Closing  their  eyes  to  light,  ample  in  itself  for  all 
the  purposes  of  duty  and  doctrine,  the}''  have  en- 


SUNDAY  AND  THE  SABBATH.        dV  < 

tered  upon  a  crusade,  determining  to  venture  the 
experiment,  so  oft  repeated,  of  enforcing,  as  doc- 
trines, the  commandments  of  men. 

The  end  of  this  matter  God  knows,  and  has 
pointed  out  in  his  \Yord.  With  outward  success 
they  may  meet;  but  it  will  be  at  the  terrible 
cost  of  that  vital  godliness  which  is  alone  found 
where  the  arm  of  God  is  made  the  arm  of  our 
strength.  For  those  who,  in  i?he  past,  have  ig- 
norantly  broken  the  law  of  Jehovah,  God  has 
ample  forgiveness ;  but  for  those  wdio,  in  the  face 
of  God's  providential  dealings,  and  in  diametrical 
opposition  to  the  plain  teachings  of  his  word,  to 
which  their  attention  is  being  called,  shall  still 
persist,  not  only  in  disobedience,  but,  also,  in  acts 
of  oppression  against  those  who  prefer  the  nar- 
row and  rugged  path  of  Bible  fidelity,  there  can 
be  nothing  in  reserve  but  the  terrible  displeasure 
of  him  whose  right  it  is  to  command. 

Reader,  whoever  you  may  be,  and  whatever 
may  have  been  your  past  convictions  and  life, 
we  turn  to  you  in  a  final  appeal.  As  you  revere 
God,  as  you  love  Christ  and  his  precious  word, 
we  exhort  you  in  this  matter  to  seek  wisdom 
from  the  only  true  source.  Be  not  discouraged 
by  the  disparity  in  numbers,  neither  tremble  be- 
fore the  hosts  which  may  frown  upon  you  in  the 
coming  contest.  "  The  Lord,  he  is  God.'  Under 
the  shadow  of  his  wing  we  can  safely  abide.  No 
nobler  destiny  was  ever  vouchsafed  to  the  obedi- 
ent among  the  children  of  men,  than  is  prepared 


378  CONSTITUTIONAL   AMENDMENT. 

for  those  who  shall  prove  their  fealty  to  the  God 
of  Heaven  by  a  noble  testimony  to  their  love  for 
him,  by  the  keeping  of  his  holy  Sabbath,  under 
circumstances,  in  the  near  future,  which  shall  in- 
deed try  the  souls  of  men. 

May  God  grant  that  both  reader  and  writer, 
nay  more,  also  our  opponent  in  this  discussion — 
toward  whom  we  entertain  none  but  the  kindli- 
est feelings — als(?,  all,  everywhere,  who  are  in- 
deed the  children  of  the  living  God  and  the 
brethren  of  our  blessed  Lord,  may  come  to  see 
eye  to  eye  in  this  matter,  so  that,  finally,  we  shall 
be  brought  safely  through  the  perils  of  this  last 
great  conflict,  which  the  true  church  is  to  endure, 
and  stand  victorious  over  all  our  enemies  upon 
the  Mount  Zion  of  our  God,  there  to  sing  the 
song  of  a  deliverance  complete  and  eternal,  in 
a  world  where,  from  one  new  moon  to  another, 
and  from  one  Sabbath  to  another,  all  flesh  shall 
come  to  worship  before  the  Lord.     (Isa.  QQ  :  23.) 


MDEX  OF  poms  DISCUSSED. 


ELD.  LITTLEJOHN'S  ARTICLES  IN  THE  STATESMAN. 


ARTICLE      ONE. 

Tage. 

Tekdency  toward  Sabbath  Discussion,  5 

Various  Views  concerning  Reform,  6 

Inquiry  as  to  Proper  Action,  13 

ARTICLE      TWO. 

Religious  View  of  Sabbath  Reform,  IG 

Sabbath  Commandment,  19 

Has  this  Law  been  Changed?  22 

ARTICLE      THREE. 

Reasons  for  Sunday  Observance  Examined,  28 

The  Resurrection, 30 

Example  of  Christ,  32 

ARTICLE      FOUR. 

Texts  on  First  Day  of  the  Week,  3G 

They  do  Not  Prove  its  Sacredness, 39 

The  Meeting  of  John  20: 19,  Considered,  42 

ARTICLE      FIVE. 

John  20:  26,  Examined,  48 

Act  of  Worship  does  Not  Consecrate  the  Day,  50 

1  Cor.  16:  2,  Examined,  54 

(379) 


380  INDEX    OF    POINTS    DISCUSSED. 


ARTICLE      SIX. 

Acts  20:  7,  Examined,  57 

Acts  2:  1,  Considered,  G3 

Tentecost  Not  First  Day,  but  Fiftieth  Day,  64 

Rev.  1:10,  Examined,   GO 

Proposed  Amendment  of  tlie  Constitution  Not  in  Harmo- 
ny with  Bible  Truth,  08 

ARTICLE       SEVEN. 

Bible  View  of  the  Sabbath,  71 

The  Law  Changed  by  the  Catholic  Power,  76 

Position  of  Seventh-day  Adventists,  79 

Proposed  Amendment  Dangerous  to  our  Liberties,  83 


PvEPLIES    AND    KEJOINDERS. 


REPLY      ONE. 

Seventh-day  Sabbatarianism  and  the  Christian  Amend- 
ment,       87 

Supposed  Action  of  Missionaries,  80 

The  Proposed  Amendment  Expresses  only  Fundamental 
Principles, 91 

FIRST      REJOINDER. 

Amendment  Not  Related  merely  to   Principles,  but  to 

Sunday  in  Particular,  96 

Supposition  of  Missionary  Action  Examined,  103 


INDEX   OF    POINTS    DISCUSSED.  381 


K  E  P  L  Y       TWO. 

The  Seventh  Day  Not  Observed  by  the  Early  Christian 

Church,  107 

Examination  of  New-Testament  Proofs,  108 

SECOND      REJOINDER. 

Oar  Common  Ground,  116 

The  Seventh  Day,  only,  the  Sabbath  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,     119 

No  Effort  Has  been  Made  to  Place  Sunday  upon  Precept,   124 

Consideration  of  Col.  2:  14-17,  125 

Rom.  14:5,  Examined,  129 

Survey  of  the  Ground  Passed  Over,  131 

REPLY      THREE. 

Testimony  of  the  Gospels  for  the  First-day  Sabbath,  133 

Resurrection  of  Christ,  134 

John  20,  136 

THIRD      REJOINDER. 

No  Evidence  of  First-day  Sacredness,  140 

The  Gospels  do  Not  Call  First  Day  the  Sabbath,  150 

REPLY      FOUR. 

Argument  for  the  First-day  Sabbath  from  the  Gift  of  the 

Holy  Spirit  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost,  154 

Authors  Differing  Concerning  the  Day  of  the  Week,  155 

Argument  for  the  First  Day,  156 

FOURTH      REJOINDER. 

Value  of  Testimony — First-day  Keepers  Witnessing  that 
Pentecost  Fell  on  the  Sabbath,  163 

No  Reason  Stated,  nor  Commandment  Found,  for  First- 
day  Sabbath 172 


382  INDEX    OF    POINTS    DISCUSSED. 


REPLY      FIVE. 

First-day  Sabbath  at  Troas,  177 

The  Reckoning  of  Time  Considered,  179 

FIFTH      REJOINDER. 

No  Custom  Found  in  Acts  20,  183 

Argument  for  Change  of  Time  Considered,  191 

Evidence  of  Acts  20  Favorable  to  the  Sabbath,  201 

REPLY      SIX. 

Testimony  of  Paul   and  John  to  the  First-day  Sabbath,  202 

Examination  of  1  Cor.  16:  2,  203 

Of  Rev.  1 :  10,  205 

SIXTH      REJOINDER. 

1  Cor.  10:2,  207 

—  Testimony  of  J.  W.  Morton,  207 

—  Concession  of  Albert  Barnes,  209 

—  Paul's  Plan  of  Systematic  Beneficence,  211 

—  Devotion  at  Home,  214 

Rev.  1:10,  219 

—  The  Sabbath  is  the  Lord's  Day,  220 

—  Christ  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  221 

—  No  Proof  Given  that  First  Day  is  the  Lord's  Day,  222 

REPLY      SEVEN. 

Testimony  of  the  Early  Fathers  to  the  First-day  Sab- 
bath,    22-5 

Testimony  of  Ignatius,  225 

Errors  of  Dr.  Dwight,  etc.,  Corrected, 227 

Barnabas  and  Justin  Martyr,  228 

Dionysius,  229 

Pliny,  230 


INDEX    OF    POINTS    DISCUSSED.  383 


SEVENTH      REJOINDER. 

Value  of  Traditional  Testimony,  231 

Ignatius,  ..'. 235 

Barnabas,   239 

Justin  Martyr,  243 

What  Justin  r^Iartyr  Believed,  246 

Dionysius,  Melito,  Pliny,  250 

Deficiency  of  Testimony  for  First-day  as  a  Sabbath,  253 

REPLY      EIGHT. 

Patristic  Testimony  to  the  First-day  Sabbath,  254 

Irenajus, 254 

Errors  of  Dr.  Dwight  and  Others  in  Quoting  this  Father,  256 
Tertullian,  Origen,  Cyprian,  257 

EIGHTH      REJOINDER. 

The  Apostasy,  261 

Testimony  of  Irena^us,  262 

Of  Tertullian,  267 

Of  Origen,  273 

Of  Cyprian,  276 

Summary  View  of  the  Case, 277 

REPLY      NINE. 

Theories  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  280 

Claim  of  an  Unwarranted  Change  of  the  Sabbath  Con- 
sidered,    284 

NINTH      REJOINDER. 

No  Adyance  Ground  Taken,  287 

Harmony  of  Sabbath  Law  and  Sacred  History, 289 

Roman  Apostasy  and  Change  of  Sabbath,  293 

Seventh-day  Sabbath  in  the  Early  Church,  296 

Testimony  of  Romanists, 304 


384  INDEX    OF    rOINTS    DISCUSSED. 


REPLY      TEN. 

The  Principle  as  to  Time  in  Sabbath  Observance,  313 

^'    One  Day  in  Seven,  not  the  Seventh  Day,  Required,  313 

Difficulties  of  Keeping  Definite  Day,  314 

TENTH      REJOINDER. 

Inconsistency  of  the  Statesman'' s  Positions,  321 

No-Definite-Day  Argument  Fatal  to  First  Day,  and  to 

any  Sabbath,  325 

Inconsistency  of  his  Position  on  Necessity  of  Legislation,  32G 

Difficulties  of  Sabbath-Keeping  Considered,  329 

Absurdity  of  the  Theory  of  an  Indefinite  Day,  333 

Definite  Time  Around  the  World,  339 

Summary,  348 

REPLY   ELEVEN. 

The  True  Theory  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  351 

First  Day  of  the  Week  the  True  Christian  Sabbath,  351 

A  Memorial  of  Redemption, 353 

ELEVENTH      REJOINDER. 

Inconsistency  of  the  Replies,  355 

No  Amendment  of  Sabbath  Law  Produced,  356 

A  Gospel  INIemorial  of  the  Resurrection,  367 

**^    Sabbath  Keeping  Involves  Sacrifice,  369 

Summary  of  Evidence  for  the  Sabbath,  371 

The  Commandment,  or  Tradition?   374 

Conclusion,  377 


CATALOGUE 


Of  Books,  Pamphlets,  Tracts,  &c..    Issued  by  the  Seventh- 
Day  Adventist  Publishing  Association, 
Battle  Creek,  Mich. 


Hymns  and  Tunes;  320  pages  of  hymns,  96  pages  of 
music;  in  plain  morocco,  $1.00. 

A  Complete  History  of  the  Sabbath  and  First  Day 
OP  THE  Week.     By  J.  N.  Andrews.     $1.00. 

The  Spirit  of  Prophecy,  Vols.  1  &  2.  By  Ellen  G.  White, 
Each  $1.00. 

The  Constitutional  Amendment:  or  The  Sunday,  The 
Sabbath,  The  Change,  and  The  Restitution.  A  Discussion 
between  W.  H.  Littlejohn  and  the  Editor  of  the  Christian 
Statesman.    Bound,  $1.00.    Paper,  40  cts.     First  Part,  10  cts 

Thoughts  on  the  Revelation,  critical  and  practical. 
By  IT.  Smith.    328  pp.,  $1.00. 

Thoughts  on  the  Book  of  Daniel,  critical  and  practical. 
By  U.  Smith.     Bound,  $1.00  ;  condensed  edition,  paper,  85  cts. 

The  Nature  and  Destiny  of  Man.  By  U.  Smith.  384 
pp.,  bound,  $1.00,  paper,  40  cts. 

Life  Incidents,  in  connection  with  the  great  Advent 
movement.     By  Eld.  James  White.     373  pp.,  $1.00. 

Autobiography  op  Eld.  Joseph  Bates,  with  portrait 
of  the  author.     318  pp.,  $1.00. 

How  TO  Live;  comprising  a  series  of  articles  on  Health, 
and  how  to  preserve  it,  with  various  recipes  for  cooking  healthful 
food,  &c.     400  pp.,  $1.00. 

Sabbath  Readings  ;  or  Moral  and  Religious  Reading  for 
Youth  and  Children.     400  pp.,  60  cts.  ;  in  five  pamphlets,  50  cts. 

Appeal  to  Youth  ;  Address  at  the  Funeral  of  Henry  N. 
White;  also  a  brief  narrative  of  his  life,  &c.  9G  pp.,  muslin,  40 
3ts.  ;  paper  covers.  10  cts. 

The  Game  of  Life,  with  notes.     Three  illustrations  SxH 


2  CATALOGUE    OF    PUBLICATIONS. 

inches  each,  representing  Satan  playing  with  man  for  his  soul. 
In  board,  50  cts.,  in  paper,  30  cts. 

The  United  States  in  Prophecy.  By  U.  Smith.  Bound, 
40  cts. ;  paper,  20  cts. 

Hymns  and  Spiritual  Songs  for  Camp-meetings  and  oth- 
er Religious  Gatherings.  Compiled  by  Eld.  James  White.  196 
pp.     Bound,  50  cts.,  paper,  25  cts. 

Refutation  of  tee  Age  to  Come.  By  J.  H.  Waggoner. 
Price  20  cts. 

Progressive  Bible  Lessons  for  Children  ;  for  Sabbath 
Schools  and  Families.     G.  H.  Bell.  Bound,  35  cts.,  paper,  25  cts. 

The  Advent  Keepsake;  comprising  a  text  of  Scripture 
for  each  day  of  the  year,  on  the  subjects  of  the  Second  Advent, 
the  Resurrection,  &c.     Plain  muslin,  25  cts,;  gilt.  40  cts. 

A  Solemn  Appeal  relative  to  Solitary  Vice,  and  the 
Abuses  and  Excesses  of  the  Marriage  Relation.  Edited  by  Eld. 
James  White.    Muslin,  50  cts. ;  paper,  30  cts. 

An  Appeal  to  the  Working  Men  and  Women,  in  the  Banks 
of  Seventh-day  Adventists.  By  James  White.  172  pp.,  bound, 
40  cts.;  paper  covers,  25  cts. 

Sermons  on  the  Sabbath  and  Law;  embracing  an  out- 
line of  the  Biblical  and  Secular  History  of  the  Sabbath  for  6000 
years.     By  J.  N.  Andrews.     25  cts. 

The  State  of  the  Dead.     By  U.  Smith.     224  pp.,  25  cts. 

History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Immortality  of  the  Soul. 
By  D.  M.  Canright.     25  cts. 

Discussion  on  the  Sabbath  Question,  between  Elds. 
Lane  and  Barnaby.     25  cts. 

The  Atonement  ;  an  Examination  of  a  Remedial  System 
in  the  light  of  Nature  and  Revelation.  By  J.  H.  Waggoner.  20  cts. 

Our  Faith  and  Hope,  Nos.  1  &  2. — Sermons  on  the  Ad- 
vent, &c.     By  James  White.     Each  20  cts. 

The  Nature  and  Tendency  of  Modern  Spiritualism. 
By  J.  H.  Waggoner.     20  cts. 

The  Bible  from  Heaven  ;  or,  a  dissertation  on  the  Evi- 
dences of  Christianity.     20  cts. 


CATALOGUE    OF    PUBLICATIONS.  6 

Discussion   on   tuts   Sabbath  Question,  between  Elds. 
Grant  and  Cornell.     20  cts. 

Review  of  Objections  to  the  Visions.    U.  Smith,  20  cts. 

Complete  Testimony  of  the  Fathers,  concerning  the 
Sabbath  and  First  Day  of  the  Week.    By  J.  N.  Andrews.    15  cts. 

The  Destiny  of  the  Wicked.      By  U.  Smith.     15  cts. 

The  Ministration  of  Angels  ;  and  the  Origin,  History, 
and  Destiny  of  Satan.     By  D.  M.  Canright.     15  cts. 

The  Messages  of  Rev.  14,  particularly  the  Third  Angel's 
Message   and  Two-Horned  Beast.     By  J.  N.  Andrews.     15  cts. 

The  Resurrection  of  the  Unjust;  a  Vindication  of  the 
Doctrine.     By  J.  H.  Waggoner.     15  cts. 

The  Sanctuary  and  Twenty-three  Hundred  Days.  By 
J,  N.  Andrews.    10  cts. 

The  Saints'  Inheritance,  or.  The  Earth  made  New.  By 
J.  N.  Loughborough.     10  cts. 

The  Seventh  Part  of  Time  ;  a  sermon  on  the  Sabbath 
Question.     By  W.  H.  Littlejohn,    10  cts. 

Review  of  Gilfillan,  and  other  authors,  on  the  Sabbath. 
By  T.  B.  Brown.    10  cts. 

The  Seven  Trumpets  ;  an  Exposition  of  Rev.  8  and  9.    7  0  cts. 

The  Date  of  the  Seventy  Weeks  of  Dan.  9  established. 
By  J.  N.  Andrews.     10  cts. 

The  Truth  Found  ;  the  Nature  and  Obligation  of  the  Sab- 
bath of  the  Fourth  Commandment.     By  J,  H.  Waggoner.   10  cts. 

Vindication  of  the  True  Sabbath.     By  J.  W.  Morton.    10  cts. 

Sunday  Seventh-day  Examined.  A  Refutation  of  the 
Teachings  of  Mede,  Jennings,  Akers,  and  Fuller.  By  J.  N.  An- 
drews.    10  cts, 

Matthew  Twenty-Four  ;  a  full  Exposition  of  the  chapter. 
By  James  White.    10  cts. 

The  Position  and  Work  of  the  True  People  of  God 
under  the  Third  AngePs  Message,     By  W,  H.  Littlejohn.  10  cts. 

An  Appeal  to  the  Baptists,  from  the  Seventh-day  Bap- 
tists, for  the  Restoration  of  the  Bible  Sabbath.     10  cts. 

Milton  on  the  State  of  the  Dead.     5  cts. 


4  CATALOGUE    OF    PUBLICATIONS. 

FOUR-CENT  TRACTS:  The  Two  Covenants— The  Law 
and  the  Gospel— The  Seventh  Part  of  Time— Who  Changed  the 
Sabbath  ?— Celestial  Railroad— Samuel  and  the  Witch  of  Endor- 
The  Ten  Commandments  not  Abolished — Address  to  the  Baptists. 

THREE-CENT  TRACTS :  The  Kingdom— Scripture  Refer- 
ences—Much in  Little— rThe  End  of  the  Wicked— Infidel  Cavils 
Considered — Spiritualism  a  Satanic  Delusion — The  Lost  Time 
Question. 

TWO-CENT  TRACTS:  The  Sufferings  of  Christ— Seven 
Reasons  for  Sunday-Keeping  Examined — Sabbath  by  Elihu — The 
Rich  Man  and  Lazarus — The  Second  Advent — Definite  Seventh 
Day — Argument  on  Sabbaton — Clerical  Slander — Departing  and 
Being  with  Christ — Fundamental  Principles  of  S.  D.  Adventists 
— The  Millennium. 

ONE- CENT  TRACTS:  Appeal  on  Immortality— Brief 
Thoughts  on  Immortality— Thoughts  for  the  Candid— Sign  of  the 
Day  of  God— The  Two  Laws— Geology  and  the  Bible— The  Per- 
fection ot  the  Ten  Commandments — The  Coming  of  the  Lord — 
Without  Excuse. 

CHARTS:  The  Prophetic,  and  Law  or  God,  Charts, 
painted  and  mounted,  such  as  are  used  by  our  preachers,  each 
$1.50.  The  two  charts,  on  cloth,  unpainted,  by  mail,  with  key, 
without  rollers,  $2.50. 

The  Way  of  LifCt  This  is  an  Allegorical  Picture,  show- 
ing the  way  of  Life  and  Salvation  through  Jesus  Christ  from 
Paradise  Lost  to  Paradise  Restored.  By  Eld.  M.  G.  Kellogg. 
The  size  of  this  instructive  and  beautiful  picture  is  19x24  inches. 
Price,  post-paid,  $1.00. 

Works  in  Other  Languages. 

The  Association  also  publishes  the  Advent  Tidende,  Danish 
monthly,  at  $1.00  per  year,  and  works  on  some  of  the  above- 
named  subjects  in  the  German,  French,  Danish,  and  Holland 
languages. 

^^  Any  of  the  foregoing  works  will  be  sent  by  mail  to  any 
part  of  the  United  States,  post-paid,  on  receipt  of  the  prices 
above  stated.  A  Full  Catalogue  of  our  various  Publications 
will  be  furnished  gratis,  on  application. 

*^*  Address,  REVIEW  &  HERALD, 

Battle  Creek,  Mich. 


CATALOGUE    OF    PUBLICATIONS. 


PEEIODICALS. 


The  Advent  Review  &  Herald  of  the  Sabbath,  weekly. 
This  sheet  is  an  earnest  exponent  of  the  Prophecies,  and  treats 
largely  upon  the  Signs  of  the  Times,  Second  Advent  of  Christ, 
Harmony  of  the  Law  and  the  Gospel,  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord, 
and,  What  we  Must  do  to  be  Saved.  Terms,  $2.00  a  year  in 
advance. 

The  Youth's  Instructor,  monthly.  This  is  a  high- 
toned,  practical  sheet,  devoted  to  moral  and  religious  instruction, 
adapted  to  the  wants  of  youth  and  children.  It  is  the  largest  and 
the  best  youth's  paper  published  in  America.  Terms,  50  cts. 
a  year,  in  advance. 

The  Health  Reformer.  This  is  alive  Journal,  devoted 
to  an  Exposition  of  the  Laws  of  Human  Life,  and  the  application 
of  those  laws  in  the  Preservation  of  Health,  and  the  Treatment  of 
Disease.  The  Reformer  mil  contain,  each  issue,  thirty-two  pages 
of  reading  matter,  from  able  and  earnest  pens,  devoted  to  real, 
practical  life,  to  physical,  moral,  and  mental  improvement.  Its 
publishers  are  determined  that  it  shall  be  the  best  Health  Jour- 
nal in  the  land. 

Terms,  $  1.00  a  year,  in  advance.  Address,  Health  Reformer, 
Battle  Creek,  Mich. 


BOOKS  FROM  OTHER  PUBLISHERS. 

Future  Punishment,  by  H.  H.  Dobney,  Baptist  minister 
of  England.  The  Scriptural  Doctrine  of  Future  Punishment, 
with  an  Appendix,  containing  the  "State  of  the  Dead,"  by  John 
Milton,  author  of  "Paradise  Lost,"  extracted  from  his  "Treatise 
on  Christian  Doctrine." 

This  is  a  very  able  and  critical  work.  It  should  be  read  by  ev- 
ery one  who  is  interested  in  the  immortality  subject.     It  is  also 


6  CATALOGUE    OF    PUBLICATIONS. 

one  of  the  best  works  upon  the  subject  to  put  into  the  hands  of 
candid  ministers,  and  other  persons  of  mind. 
Price,  post-paid,  $1.00. 

The  "Voice  of  the  Church,  on  the  Coming  and  Kingdom 
of  the  Redeemer  ;  or,  a  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Reign  of 
Christ  on  Earth. '  By  D.  T.  Taylor.  A  very  valuable  work,  high- 
ly  indorsed  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic. 

Price,  post-paid,  $1.00. 

The  Great  Reformation,  by  Martin,  5  Vols., $  7.00 

D'Aubigne's  History  of  the  Reformation,  5  Vols  , 4.50 

Scripture  Biography, 4.50 

Cruden's  Concordance,  sheep, 2.00 

"                  **         muslin,   1.50 

Bible  Dictionary,  sheep,  2.00 

"              *«            muslin,  1.60 

Cole's  Concordance,  1.50 

Prince  of  the  House  of  David, 2.00 

Pillar  of  Fire,  2.00 

Throne  of  David,  2.00 

The  Court  and  Camp  of  David,  1.50 

The  Old  Red  House, 1.50 

Higher  Christian  Life,  1.50 

Pilgrim's  Progress,  large  type,  1.25 

"  "         small     "      60 

Biography  of  George  Whitefield, 1.25 

History  of  English  Puritans,  1.25 

Story  of  a  Pocket  Bible,  1.25 

Captain  Russell's  Watchword,  1.25 

The  Upward  Path,  1.25 

Ellen  Dacre,  125 

The  Brother's  Choice,  1.15 

Climbing  the  Mountain,  1.15 

The  Two  Books, 1.15 

Awakening  of  Italy, 1.00 


CATALOGUE    OF    PUBLICATIONS.  7 

White  Foreigners, 1.00 

Lady  Huntington,  1.00 

Young  Man's  Counselor,  1.00 

Young  Lady's  Counselor,  1.00 

Paul  Venner,  1.00 

Among  the  Alps, 1.00 

Poems  of  Home  Life,  80 

Edith  Somers,  80 

Nuts  for  Boys  to  Crack, 80 

Anecdotes  for  the  Family,  75 

Pictorial  Narratives,  60 

Bertie's  Birthday  Present,  60 

Songs  for  Little  Ones,  60 

Memoir  of  Dr.  Payson,  60 

Mirage  of  Life,  60 

Huguenots  of  France,  50 

The  Boy  Patriot,  50 

Springtime  of  Life,  50 

May  Coverly,  50 

Glen  Cabin,  50 

The  Old,  Old  Story,  cloth,  gilt,  50 

Poems  by  Rebekah  Smith,  50 

Charlotte  Elizabeth,  40 

Save  the  Erring,  40 

Blanche  Gamond,  40 

My  Brother  Ben, .40 

Hannah's  Path,   35 

Star  of  Bethlehem,  30 

Father's  Letters  to  a  Daughter,  30 

Jl^^  A  more  full  Catalogue  of  books  of  this  nature,  for 
sale  at  this  Office,  can  be  had  on  application. 
Address,  REVIEW  &  HERALD, 

Battle  Creek,  Mich. 


HEALTH  REFORM  PUBLICATIONS. 


Good  Health,  and  How  to  Preserve  It.  A  brief  treatise  on 
the  various  hygienic  agents  and  conditions  which  are  essen- 
tial for  the  preservation  of  health.  Just  the  thing  for  a  per- 
son who  wishes  to  learn  how  to  avoid  disease.  Pamphlet, 
price,  post  paid,  10  cents. 

Disease  and  Drugs.  Nature  and  Cause  of  Disease,  and  So- 
called  "  Action"  of  Drugs.  This  is  a  clear  and  comprehen- 
sive exposition  of  the  nature  and  true  cause  of  disease,  and 
also  exposes  the  absurdity  and  falsity  of  drug  medication. 
Pamphlet.     Price,  10  cents. 

The  Bath  :  Its  Use  and  Application.  A  full  description  of 
the  various  baths  employed  in  the  hygienic  treatment  of  dis- 
ease, together  with  the  manner  of  applying  them,  and  the 
diseases  to  which  they  are  severally  adapted.  Pamphlet. 
Price,  post-paid,  15  cents. 

Hydropathic  Encyclopedia.    Trail.    Price,  post-paid,  $4.50. 

Iterine  Diseases  and  Displacements.  Trail.  Price,  post 
paid,  $3.00. 

Science  of  Hnman  Life.  By  Sylvester  Graham,  M.  D 
Price,  post-paid,  $3.00. 

Domestic  Practice.  Johnson.    Price,  post-paid,  $1.75. 

Hand  Book  of  Health — Physiology  and  Hygiene.  •  Price, 
pobf-paid,  75  cents ;  paper  cover,  40  cents. 

Water  Cure  in  Chronic  Diseases.  By  J.  M.  Gully,  M.  D. 
Price,  post-paid,  $1.75. 

Cure  of  Consumption.    Dr.  Work.    Price,  post-paid,  80  cts. 

The  Hygienic  System.  By  R.  T.  Trail,  M.  D.  Recently 
published  at  the  Office  of  the  Health  Reformer.  It  is 
just  the  work  for  the  time,  and  should  be  read  by  the  mill- 
ion.    Price,  post-paid,  15  cents. 

The  Health  and  Diseases  of  Women.  By  R.  T.  Trail,  M.  D. 
A  work  of  great  value.     Price,  post-paid,  15  cents. 

Tobacco-Using.  A  philosophical  exposition  of  the  Effects 
of  Tobacco  on  the  Human  System.  By  R.  T.  Trail,  M.  D. 
Price,  post-paid,  15  cents. 

Valuable  Pamphlet.  Containing  three  of  the  most  important 
of  Graham's  twenty-five  Lectures  on  the  Science  of  Human 
Life — eighth,  the  Organs  and  their  Uses ;  thirteenth,  Man's 
Physical  Nature  and  the  Structure  of  His  Teeth ;  fourteenth, 
the  Dietetic  Character  of  Man.    Price,  post-paid,  35  cts. 

Address,  Health  Reformer,  Battle  Creek,  MkJ^, 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Libraries 


ineoiogicai  seminary  Lior 


1    1012  01 


250  2094 


1 

DATE  DUE 

GAYLORD           #3523PI        Printed  in  USA 

